Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Territorial Army

Mr. William Yates: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition in the following terms:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
In order to save the time of the House, I shall not ask that the Petition be read again. I will explain it. This Petition is from about 1,800 people in my constituency and is signed by a justice of the peace, councillors, county councillors, electors and others, asking this Honourable House to consider the proposals for the Territorial Army and asking that those proposals be reconsidered. I also declare my interest in that I am a serving officer in the Territorial Army. The Petition ends with the Prayer.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. More: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition signed by several hundred members of my constituency, the Ludlow division.
The Petition sheweth:
That Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the reorganisation of the Territorial Army so far as they are publicly known take too little account of the value of the Territorial Army in Civil Defence, as a means of the expansion of Her Majesty's Forces in a future National Emergency, as a strong local influence in the support of Her Majesty's regular Forces and as a social benefit to the community.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons do urge Her Majesty's Government to consider the reorganisation of the Territorial Army further before making firm proposals to Parliament.

The Petition ends,
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Letter Post (London-Angus)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters dispatched from Central London are now taking two or more days to reach destinations in the County of Angus where previously they were normally delivered in 24 hours; and what steps he is taking to remedy this position.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what is the average time taken for letters posted in London to arrive in north-east Scotland; and how this compares with a year ago.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): There is no general delay in delivery to this part of Scotland. Letters posted in London by the early evening are normally delivered there on the following weekday, except for remote rural areas where they may take an additional day. This service is the same as that given a year ago.
If, however, the hon. Gentlemen have details of any particular delays I will gladly look into them.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply shows that communications in his Department are even worse than we feared? Is he aware that, to my knowledge, there has been no example of a letter arriving with as little delay as he indicates, and will he suggest to his right hon. Friend that instead of concentrating on producing a whole lot of new stamps he should produce a decent service for this area?

Mr. Slater: I accept that the hon. Gentleman really believes that what he is saying is correct, but perhaps I might point out that even in his own constituency there has been only one complaint within the last six months.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as well as having


to face increased charges, the public are having to put up with letters taking a week to arrive, and parcels a fortnight to arrive, in parts of Scotland? Is this the kind of service which the public are to expect in the future?

Mr. Slater: All I can say is that apart from the criticism which the hon. Gentleman seeks to direct against the Department, the information that I have from the inquiries that I have made is that there is no general delay.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Postal Deliveries (Delay)

Mr. Gower: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the difficulties caused for industrial firms and for commercial organisations and their representatives by lateness of postal deliveries in many areas; and if he will state his plans for dealing with the difficulties which have arisen.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): We aim to make deliveries early enough to meet the wishes of industry and commerce, but it is not always practicable to do so. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of cases where the time of delivery is causing difficulties I will gladly look into the matter.

Mr. Gower: Is the Postmaster-General aware that since this Question was tabled it has been made clear that this is a matter of profound concern to the organisation of commercial travellers throughout the United Kingdom? I hope that he will consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Benn: As a result of a previous representation made by the hon. Member one of his constituents was able to get his mail half an hour earlier. The difficulty is that if completion of the night mail delivery is to be made at an earlier hour an enormous amount of manpower must be occupied in making deliveries, and we have to strike a balance between costs and service in this regard.

Mr. Bryan: To what extent can the right hon. Gentleman report an improvement in the services for dealing with mail to and from abroad? This has been

a failure which has brought a lot of frustration to our exporters.

Mr. Benn: That is a separate question, to which I should like to give a measured answer. One of the difficulties with mail to and from abroad is that delays do not always occur in this country. There certainly was some difficulty two or three months ago, but there has been a substantial improvement recenly.

Postal Services

Mr. Gower: asked the Postmaster-General to what causes he attributes the recent deterioration of postal services in England and Wales, respectively; to what extent staff shortages are to blame; and what proposals he has for improving these services.

Mr. Benn: My information does not confirm the suggestion that there has been a recent deterioration in the letter service though postal services generally in England and Wales alike are still affected by staff shortages in some of our main sorting offices. A big increase in parcel traffic in recent months, together with our staffing difficulties, have resulted in delay to some parcels on occasions. We are maintaining our drive for more staff, to enable us to provide the advertised services. In particular we shall continue to work with British Railways to see what more can be done to speed up the transit of parcel mails.

Mr. Gower: I sympathise with the Postmaster-General in regard to some of these difficulties, but is it not a fact that in some cases the service now given is much worse than it was 50 years ago? I do not blame him or his Government, but there has been a continuous deterioration. Will he do what he can to try to stem this unfortunate trend?

Mr. Benn: I am not able to deal in detail with a comparison with the situation 50 years ago, but it is true that many years ago, when labour was cheap, the pattern of postal services took extreme advantage of that fact. As for the hon. Member's local interest, I am happy to be able to tell him that the intensive recruitment campaign in May and June resulted in our filling most of our staff vacancies in Cardiff, and in Wales generally the situation is no longer serious.

Mr. Hooson: Is not the Postmaster-General aware that in Mid-Wales, certainly, where there is a centralisation of postal services, there has been an increasing delay in the delivery both of letters and parcels?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate the difficulties to which the hon. and learned Member refers, but as mechanisation develops in the postal services it is inevitable that we shall see a concentration of sorting into areas on a rather more centralised basis. This should not produce difficulties of the kind which the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned.

Postal Deliveries (Birkenhead)

Mr. Howe: asked the Postmaster-General what progress he is making in his review of the present arrangements for postal delivery services in Birkenhead; and whether this will lead to the earlier delivery of morning mails and less delay for parcels posted to Birkenhead from other parts of the country.

Mr. Dell: asked the Postmaster-General what is the latest time at which the morning postal delivery should be completed in Birkenhead.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The review of the delivery arrangements in Birkenhead will take some time yet to complete. Its object is to ensure that the first letter delivery will be completed in all parts of the town by 9.30 a.m.—the standard finishing time in provincial towns—and where delivery is now later than this it will be made earlier. The review will have no effect on the time taken by parcels in the post but we are doing all we can in other ways to improve the parcel service.

Mr. Howe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that setting a concluding time for morning deliveries as late as 9.30 falls far short of the declared aim of his right hon. Friend to meet the wishes of industry and commerce in these matters? Is he not further aware that there has been continuous protest from business and financial interests throughout Birkenhead at the lateness of morning deliveries? Can he give no better answer than the one he has just given?

Mr. Slater: We shall do what we can in the current reorganisation to give these

places an early delivery, but it would be out of the question to give them all a delivery by 8.30. We have introduced certain schemes under which business firms which want to have their mail delivered earlier can rent a private box at the Post Office and anyone can call for his mail at 6.30.

Mr. Dell: When will the review which my hon. Friend is undertaking be completed? What advice can he give to private individuals about what they can do if they find the present delivery time unacceptable?

Mr. Slater: They can make representations through the Post Office Users Council. With regard to the review, there is a good deal of preliminary work to do on testing postmen's walks. There are 172 walks and about 40 of them have so far been tested. It will take some time to complete this, after which the conclusions must be accepted by the staff engaged in this work.

Christmas Mail

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Postmaster-General what action he has taken and proposes to take to encourage citizens to post early for Christmas.

Mr. Benn: We are keeping the public informed of the latest dates of posting by posters on vans, on outside posting boxes and in Post Offices; by advertisements in a selection of the national and local Press; and, by leaflets available in Post Offices.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he consider making a Ministerial television broadcast on this matter in view of the fact that it is expected that in the last two weeks in December over 1,000 million letters and 20 million parcels will be handled? Would he, on behalf of the whole House, express appreciation to the permanent Post Office staff and temporary helpers for their work in this enormous task?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say "Thank you" on behalf of the House and the general public to postmen and temporary helpers. The suggestion about a television broadcast on the theme of posting early for Christmas is not a new one. Previous Postmasters-General


regularly did it; it has been so successful in the past that I do not think it will be necessary this year.

Mr. Bryan: As this is a point of great interest to the public, would the right hon. Gentleman describe what sort of service the Post Office will be able to give in letter and parcel deliveries, as compared with, say, last year?

Mr. Benn: This is very difficult to forecast. A great deal, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, depends on whether the public post their parcels by the 18th and their letters and cards by the 20th. If this is generally done we are hopeful that all the Christmas mail will be delivered by Christmas time.

Services (Advertisements)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inability of the Post Office to fulfil efficiently many of its services, he will ban advertisements by it.

Mr. Benn: Post Office advertising is now concentrated on recruiting staff and on helping the public to get the most out of the services (e.g. post early for Christmas). Advertising campaigns designed to stimulate certain postal and telephone business as such was stopped some months ago.

Mr. Walker: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the reason why "someone, somewhere" is normally waiting for a letter these days is due to the inefficiency of the postal services? Therefore, was there any need to advertise this service earlier in the year?

Mr. Benn: I am sure the hon. Gentleman means his comment to be directed only at me—and I am quite happy to take it—but it will, of course, be read by all the people who work in the Post Office at this time of the year as an attack on them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Of course it will. It simply is not true to say that the postal services as a whole and the quality of service given have deteriorated over the last 12 months. Our statistics on this, which, naturally, a big Department like this keeps very carefully, prove this to be the case, but, of course, it is true that with 30 million letters to be handled every day—or, at Christmas, one hundred million a day—some will go astray. There are mistakes of this kind

and, on behalf of the Post Office, it is naturally my duty to apologise for those mistakes.

Telecommunications Services

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects the telecommunication services will be able to meet all customers' requirements.

Mr. Benn: Generally the Post Office telecommunications services are meeting most customers' requirements. I shall be glad to investigate any specific shortcoming which the hon. Member would like to refer to me. Telecommunications is one of the fastest growing services in Britain today. But with a large backlog of under-investment to overtake and soaring demand it will be some years before Britain has the service it really needs.

Mr. Gilmour: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made no attempt at all to answer my Question? If he has no idea when he will be able to satisfy the customers' demands, on what basis is he planning in his Department? Or is he not?

Mr. Benn: The position is that when I took over this office I discovered that the estimates published by the previous Government were, in the case of demand, 37 per cent. out, and, in the case of calls, 50 per cent. out within 12 months of the publication of the White Paper. I discovered that my predecessor had promised to end the waiting list by March, 1966, but, on the basis of the capital investment programme currently in operation then, it would have risen to 300,000 by March, 1969. This is why we have actually increased the capital investment programme which, in the current five years, will run at the rate of £1,200 million as compared with £900 million for the five years beginning with the 1963–64 period. I can tell the House that I am the first Postmaster-General who is not short of capital for the expansion of the services.

Mr. Mawby: The House will be pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has increased the general capital programme over the next few years, but can he assure us that this capital programme is not suffering from cuts like many other Departments at present?

Mr. Benn: I can give the hon. Gentleman this assurance which, from his previous experience, he will be glad to have, that there is to be no deferment of essential telecommunications investment, even under the announcements made by my right hon. Friend.

Parcels Mail (Railway Delays)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has made to the British Railways Board concerning delays to parcel mails in transit on the railways.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We keep closely in touch with British Railways about the handling of parcel mails. They have recently introduced new arrangements which are designed to improve the quality of service.

Mr. Onslow: Yes, but is the Minister aware that they have had the effect of slowing down the service? Will he say how long he thinks it should take a parcel to travel 50 miles and how long it actually takes?

Mr. Slater: I am aware of the interest which the hon. Member has taken in this matter because of the correspondence which I have had with him, but a problem of this nature is not capable of easy solution, as I think he will agree. Progress is being made. As my right hon. Friend has announced, after Christmas the latest arrangements for loading parcel mails will be reviewed.

Parcels Service

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Postmaster-General what action he intends to take on Lord Hinton's report to the Minister of Transport on the co-ordination of the parcels service of the General Post Office with the railways and the road hauliers.

Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend tells me that he will be making an announcement about parcels and sundries in due course and I would ask the hon. Member to await that statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the Postmaster-General aware that his noble Friend, Lord Snow, in another place the other day said that the parcels post was five times as expensive and slower than it was

in 1939? Will he, therefore, take this matter of the parcels post particularly to his heart? Secondly, will he admit that it is not a coincidence that 19 out of the 88 Questions which have been asked today have been to do with the parcels and letter post?

Mr. Benn: I am well aware of this. Indeed, we signed the contract with British Railways earlier this year to give to the Post Office certain rights of supervision and, indeed, duplication of rail parcel carriage in the event of difficulty arising. It also saves £4 million a year, which will help to bring the service into balance. In so far as it is open to me to co-ordinate parcels delivery with the railways, this is already done. Wider questions about parcels and sundry services generally often refer to things of a very different kind from Post Office parcels.

Philatelic Bureau (Complaints)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Postmaster-General how many complaints he has received during the last six months concerning the service provided by the General Post Office Philatelic Bureau.

Mr. Benn: We received some 3,750 written complaints about the Philatelic Bureau's services in the period June-November. In the same period the Bureau dealt with over 80,000 orders.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does the Postmaster-General realise that three of these complaints came from one of my constituents, who then received a very handsome apology from the Postmaster-General and who by the very next post received six times the order he had placed?

Mr. Benn: My predecessor set up the Philatelic Bureau, which was a very wise step. We have learned in the Post Office that nothing fails like success, because the success of the stamps programme has led to great pressure. Philatelists are extremely meticulous, and I am not satisfied that all is going well. I am giving further consideration to the problem.

Postal Services (London)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about his efforts to halt the deterioration in London's postal services.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Postmaster-General what action he is taking to halt the deterioration in Greater London's postal services.

Mr. Benn: I gave details of the measures I was taking to the House on 3rd November in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith). Since then recruiting has improved still further and the service given is comparable to that given this time last year.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the Postmaster-General aware that because of the cancellation of one of the daily deliveries and also because of the repeated lateness of some of the other services, the service generally—in the words of one of my hon. Friends—is worse than it was half-a-century ago? While his efforts to stimulate recruitment are appreciated, will he look at the whole delivery system anew to see whether a much-needed improvement can be brought about?

Mr. Benn: The changes which I announced in August about the ending of the third delivery were necessary on the grounds of finance and manpower. Since the hon. Member last asked, we have added eight postmen to the Chiswick Post Office. Vacancies in the London Postal Region inner area, which were 1,400 in May, are now only 972 and we have employed women and part-time workers. This is the product of an intensive campaign which has led and should lead to improvement.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the deterioration in the postal services and the frustration caused by that deterioration is exacerbated by the deterioration in the telephone service? Is he aware that one of my constituents has just been told that it will take 18 months to install a new telephone, whereas it takes two days to install a new telephone in New York?

Mr. Benn: The Bell Telephone System invested more capital in its system in one year than the Conservative Party invested in the 13 years it was in power. This is a problem common to the whole community, and it causes great difficulty. We are all in a sense responsible for this neglect, but after neglecting investment in the telephone service for a very long time it is no good suddenly expecting that it

can be put right in a matter of months, because it cannot.

Mr. Bryan: If recruiting in London has improved to a considerable extent, as I understand is the case, why is the service only as good as it was last year? Why has it not improved?

Mr. Benn: The problem of recruitment is not a new problem in London. The position deteriorated in the period between last year and now. We have sought to pull it back to the level of last year.

Postal and Telephone Services (Richmond)

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Postmaster-General why the postal and telephone services have deteriorated in Richmond; and if he will set up a local inquiry into this.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Mainly because of a shortage of staff, the postal service in Richmond is not as good as it should be, but our recruitment campaign is meeting with some success. I have no reason to believe that the telephone service at Richmond has deteriorated.

Mr. Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and answer my Question? Will he set up an inquiry into the deteriorating position which he just admitted exists? Is he aware that this problem is having a great effect on the commercial activities of firms in the Richmond area and that there has been no sign at all of improvement since the steps he took last summer?

Mr. Slater: All I can say in response to that supplementary question is that, apart from the complaints which have been made by one firm and which have been passed on to the Department, no evidence of serious loss of letters in the Richmond area has been reported.

Mr. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Public Lectures and Films

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Postmaster-General how many public lectures were given by officials of his Department, how many public showings of films


about his Department there were, and how many public displays, demonstrations and exhibitions about his Department have taken place during the last 12 months.

Mr. Benn: In the last 12 months there have been about 3,600 public lectures by Post Office officials, 2,400 public showings of films and 8,700 public displays, demonstrations and exhibitions about my Department.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is a very valuable way by which officials of his Department can assess public reaction to the services he is providing? Is he aware that in the case of a statutory monopoly one often has the impression that complaints are received rather in the way of one kicking against cotton wool? Does he not agree that officials who are in contact with the public through the media mentioned in the Question are more likely to give a service which meets the public's requirements?

Mr. Benn: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says and there is no Department in closer contact with the public than the Post Office. It is for this reason that we set up the Users' Council, so that the users may be really organised in their representations to us. These exhibitions and displays also help the public to get the most out of the services which we now offer to them, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Colour Television

Mr. Jopling: asked the Postmaster-General whether his answer on 29th March, advocating the adoption of the National Television System Committee system of colour television, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Postmaster-General whether the Government's policy on colour television remains the same as in his anwer on 29th March; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McBride: asked the Postmaster-General if, when he has studied the report of the Technical Advisory Committee recommendations, he will announce the

date of introduction of colour television programmes in Great Britain.

Mr. Benn: I cannot add to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) on 1st December: that is, that the Television Advisory Committee has recommended to me that colour television be introduced on 625 lines only, using the PAL system of transmission and I am considering this advice.

Mr. Jopling: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us more of what happened at the conference in Rome last week? Further, will he tell us what instructions he gave the British delegation which went to that conference?

Mr. Benn: The position is that at the Vienna conference earlier this year the Government recommended our delegation to put forward the N.T.S.C. system, in the hope of getting general agreement. Since then, we have reconsidered it in the light of the failure to get international agreement about a system. There is no firm decision yet on the PAL system, although the other recommendation about colour being on 625 lines is, of course, in line with the policy put out by the previous Government in their White Paper. Every other European country is in a similar difficulty to our own, and indeed at the E.B.U. conference yet another system was brought forward, I believe a Russian development of S.E.C.A.M. This is really a very intricate and difficult problem.

Mr. McBride: I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot give an opening date. Can he tell me whether the Technical Advisory Committee has estimated the number of sets capable of receiving the initial transmission? Can he also tell me whether the Television Advisory Committee report has any information as to set costs, maintenance and any necessary aerial adjustment?

Mr. Benn: The Television Advisory Committee's function was to recommend to us the best system that it thought we should adopt. The number of sets available would depend on the number of sets manufactured and cannot be estimated with any great degree of accuracy at this stage. There is no doubt that once we can get the firm decision that I am keen


to get many of these other questions will be answered.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over the last 12 months we have deliberately not pressed him on this subject knowing its complexity? As he now says that he hopes to come to a firm conclusion, will he tell us when he thinks this will be and whether he will be able to make the announcement in the House?

Mr. Benn: It will certainly be made in the House of Commons. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would comment on the fact that he had said that the announcement had already been made. It has not. This is tied up with the future of the Fourth Channel, as he knows, because of the interest of the I.T.A. in the Fourth Channel. It will, therefore, be announced when the conclusion of the broadcasting review is reached, which I hope will be early next year.

Local Sound Broadcasting

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General what decision has yet been reached by the Government on whether local sound broadcasting should be introduced into the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Postmaster-General what action he has taken to establish local sound radio; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: The Government are currently reviewing this and other aspects of broadcasting policy. As soon as the review is completed I will, of course, be reporting its outcome to the House.

Mr. Gilmour: Since there is an obvious demand for programmes other than those supplied by the B.B.C., would the right hon. Gentleman not be better occupied in licensing local radio stations and not indolently threatening the pirate radio stations which are merely meeting this demand?

Mr. Benn: Nobody disputes the popularity of local record programmes, which almost all members of the House and the general public like. The question is whether they should be provided at the expense of the enjoyment and rights of, and duties to, others. The question of local broadcasting, in which I am keenly interested, is one of the subjects of the

review. That is why we are hoping that when the review comes out we shall be able to give a clear answer on this.

Mr. Royle: But when will the review come out and when will the decision be taken? All we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman so far, as my hon. Friend has said, are threats against pirate radios. We still have not heard any comments from him or his right hon. Friends about the setting up of a university of the air. When will these decisions be taken by the Post Office?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman knows that even the last Government promised a review of broadcasting policy at the end of last year. These are very complex questions and I hope, as I announced earlier, that we shall be able to publish a White Paper or make a statement early in the New Year. But I do not believe that these matters should be rushed as a result of pressure exercised in the way in which the present pressure group is seeking to exercise it.

Television Programmes (Content)

Mr. Dance: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to set up an authority, similar to the Independent Television Authority, with power to control the content of British Broadcasting Corporation programmes.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to establish an organisation similar to the Press Council which will have the authority to receive, select, consider and pronounce judgment on complaints in respect of all sound and television programmes, and authority to compel the broadcasting of its judgments when, in the opinion of the organisation, this is necessary.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the growing number of obscene, blasphemous and indecent performances on television, he will make it a condition of renewing the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation that they appoint a censorship body as is done by the film industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. The governing bodies of both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are appointed as public corporations and are entrusted with responsibility for the programme content of their services.


They are already under a duty to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, their programmes do not offend against good taste or decency, nor are offensive to public feeling and they have full powers of control. Both bodies also have Advisory Councils.

Mr. Dance: Why not? Is the Postmaster-General aware of the very salutary effect which the I.T.A. has on commercial television? At present the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. are failing dismally in their duty. In view of public opinion in this matter, will he please change his mind?

Mr. Benn: I very well understand the strong feelings expressed by the hon. Member. For my part, I should greatly welcome an opportunity to debate this matter rather than just discuss it by exchange in this way across the Floor of the House. But with the Board of Governors exercising full responsibility, it is clearly not for me to intervene.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dempsey.

Mr. Dance: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not take that step at this moment because Questions by other hon. Members were answered at the same time as his Question, and his giving notice would prevent them from putting a supplementary question.

Mr. Dempsey: Has my right hon. Friend forgotten that he also refused my request to establish a viewers' council? As the B.B.C. is obviously not exercising these controls, can my right hon. Friend suggest any ways and means to the House whereby the blasphemous, sexy and profane parts of television performances can be removed?

Mr. Benn: Being very well aware of this problem and of the strong feeling aroused by it, as I told the House I asked the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to make a point of bringing to the attention of their Boards of Governors comments made by hon. Members and reported in HANSARD about the quality of their programmes. A number of individual hon. Members and groups make representations. I think that this

is the best way of doing it, although in the debate on 13th May, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that the Government were considering proposals for a viewers' council, which is a suggestion which has been made.

Mr. Blackburn: My right hon. Friend said that there was a responsibility for seeing that there was nothing offensive to public taste. Does he not agree that the use of a crucifix as a pipe rack was offensive to public taste?

Mr. Benn: I fully recognise that the incident to which my hon. Friend referred gave very great offence.

Mr. Dance: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Television Reception (Llanfyllin)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to improve the poor reception of television services in the Llanfyllin area of Montgomeryshire.

Mr. Joseph Slater: It is for the broadcasting authorities in the first place to consider what they can do to improve the reception and extend the coverage of their services. The I.T.A. have recently put to my right hon. Friend their plan to this end; and the B.B.C. are, I understand, about to refer to him Stage 5 of their plan for B.B.C. 1. As soon as he has considered these plans, he will make an announcement.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Member aware that the inhabitants of this area, as of many other areas in Mid-Wales, have been waiting patiently for years for a reasonable television reception even of one programme? Will he bring pressure to bear on the Department concerned.

Mr. Slater: I can appreciate the feelings of the hon. and learned Member about the position of his own constituents, but I must tell him that the claims of Llanfyllin will be considered along with those of other places where reception is poor or non-existent.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Programmes)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps, under section 14(4) of the British Broadcasting Corporation's licence and agreement, to require the British Broadcasting Corporation to mark all programmes that are likely to be offensive to religious susceptibilities.

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. The B.B.C. is already under a general duty to satisfy itself, so far as is possible, that its programmes do not offend against good taste nor offend public feeling. It must remain a matter for its day-to-day judgment whether viewers' attention should be drawn to particular programmes in any way.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the programme to which reference has been made—in which a crucifix was used as a pipe rack—our Lord's words were also used in a pornographic joke? Is he aware that this gave great offence and that if it had affected a minority religion there would surely have been a great outburst? Should not such programmes be marked, "Only suitable for atheists and not ordinary people who believe in religion?"

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the B.B.C. does sometimes alert viewers to some of its programmes. Religious susceptibilities or feelings are strong, but not only between Christians and atheists. Sometimes strong feelings are aroused between members of different denominations. I am told, for example, that the Pope's broadcast from the United Nations caused great hostility among some other denominations, incredible though that may seem. It is difficult, therefore, to deal with this problem.

Mr. Shinwell: Apart from religious susceptibilities, would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is strong feeling in many quarters about many of the programmes for which the B.B.C. is responsible? Would it not be desirable, if this is not already done, for the B.B.C. to invite a delegation of hon. Members to discuss these matters with the Corporation?

Mr. Benn: I am well aware of what my right hon. Friend says about the strength of feeling on this issue—of which I know the B.B.C. is also well aware. As my right hon. Friend will know perhaps better than anyone, it is difficult to say almost anything worthwhile without offending somebody.

Mr. Doughty: Would the Postmaster-General point out to the B.B.C. that scenes and acts which may be suitable for sophisticated audiences in small places like cabarets are unsuitable for general broadcasting to millions of the general public?

Mr. Benn: This is one of the difficulties of mass communication. If the B.B.C. and I.T.A. were limited in what they could broadcast generally to what was suitable for young people it would greatly limit their output. I know that this arouses very strong feeling and if the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about it he should, as many hon. Members do, make representations to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. either directly or through me.

Television Programmes (Supervision)

Mr. Victor Yates: asked the Postmaster-General in view of the widespread dissatisfaction about the present standards of television programmes, if he will introduce legislation to enable a full inquiry to be held into the impact of the present television programmes upon all sections of society, especially children, and the need for greater supervision.

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. A Committee to initiate and co-ordinate research into the part television plays or could play as a medium of communication and fostering attitudes, particularly of young people, was appointed in July, 1963 by the then Home Secretary. It is under the chairmanship of Mr. Noble, Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University.

Mr. Yates: In view of the increasing number of people who have become anxious about programmes which are thoroughly offensive and feature a considerable amount of violence, will my right hon. Friend persuade the broadcasting authorities to examine this problem more closely, particularly in view of the increased amount of vandalism and crime and the need to ensure that these


media do not increase or encourage crime?

Mr. Benn: What my hon. Friend says certainly confirms the wisdom of the previous Government in appointing this Committee. However, I greatly hope that we will have an opportunity of a short debate in the House, perhaps in response to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), so that some of the difficulties can be more fully aired.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say when the Committee will report and whether its report will be purely for the B.B.C. or whether it will be published so that we can all see it?

Mr. Benn: With respect, that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The first working paper has already been published and further documents will be coming out. I will make some inquiries on the subject and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosk (Old People's Estate, Norwich)

Mr. Norwood: asked the Postmaster-General why he has refused to install a telephone kiosk in an old people's estate, Godric Place, Norwich.

Mr. Joseph Slater: There are already four telephone kiosks under half a mile from this estate and a fifth one is not justified for general use. It has been suggested to the Norwich City Council that it might rent a coin box installation for the special needs of this section of their community but it has not viewed the suggestion favourably. I think this might be discussed further with the Council.

Mr. Norwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a profoundly unsatisfactory reply? Is he suggesting that a responsibility of the Post Office should be transferred to the Norwich Corporation? I would point out to him——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask.

Mr. Norwood: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he appreciates that there are 106 dwellings on this estate occupied

almost entirely by elderly people and in addition a further 27 houses and 24 flats nearby which could quite easily use this kiosk?

Mr. Slater: At the moment the Post Office is already subsidising kiosk users generally. It did so to the extent of £4¼ million last year. This is a tremendous burden to carry. We are not seeking to persuade the Norwich authorities to subsidise the Post Office.

Birmingham

Mr. Peter Griffiths: asked the Postmaster-General how many subscribers within the Birmingham telephone area were compelled to accept shared lines at the latest convenient date and one year previously.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am sorry that this information is not readily available, but at 31st October about 44,600 of the 183,000 subscribers in the Birmingham Telephone Area had accepted shared lines. The figures one year previously were 36,300 and 168,400 respectively.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern at the harsh policy adopted by the Post Office in this matter, in particular since the reply that I received from the Postmaster-General which said that exemptions must be consistently rejected?

Mr. Slater: I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. Member that we shall have to continue to ask these people to share when this is necessary, in order to improve the service to others. We have a long waiting list, and people are constantly making application for the installation of telephones. We are also constantly receiving requests from Members of Parliament in respect of individual cases. Until we can overcome this waiting list problem shared lines will have to continue to operate.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: asked the Postmaster-General what was the number of outstanding applications for the installation of a telephone within the Birmingham telephone area at the latest convenient date and one year previously.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Excluding orders in hand or under inquiry, the numbers were 3,663 at 31st October, 1965, and


3,802 one year earlier. During these twelve months the number of connections increased by about 14,600.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this indicates that a harsh policy with regard to shared lines is quite unnecessary?

Mr. Slater: No, I cannot agree. Most of those who are now waiting should have the service by March, 1966.

Trunk Calls (Birkenhead)

Mr. Howe: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of prospective outward trunk calls from Birkenhead encounter the Circuits Engaged announcement; how this compares with the comparable proportion when subscriber trunk dialling was first introduced in Birkenhead; how it compares with the comparable proportion on other subscriber trunk dialling exchanges; what steps he is taking to ensure the availability of sufficient trunk lines to cope with peak demand for outgoing trunk calls from Birkenhead; when such steps will be effective; upon what assumed growth rate of trunk traffic he bases his assessment of the adequacy of such steps; and what has been the actual comparable rate of growth since the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling in Birkenhead.

Mr. Benn: As the Answer to this long Question is also rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Howe: Can the right hon. Gentleman, whose difficulties I appreciate, give me any indication when reconsidering my Question of whether the proportion of calls being met by the engaged recorded answer is continuing to rise and is still well above the national average or the national target figure?

Mr. Benn: The average percentage of outward trunk calls encountering the engaged announcement this year in Birkenhead has been 3 per cent., but there was an upsurge in October, when the figure reached 5·7 per cent. The national average this year is 2·5 per cent., but at the time STD was introduced in Birkenhead, it was 3·9 per cent. We are catering for an increase in trunk traffic of 17 per cent. a year, at compound interest, compared with only 13 per cent. since the time that STD was introduced.

Following is the Answer:

The average percentage of outward trunk calls from Birkenhead which have encountered the circuit engaged announcement so far this year has been about 3 per cent.; there was, however, an upsurge of calls in October when the figure reached 5·7 per cent. These figures compare with 3·9 per cent, when STD was first introduced at Birkenhead; and with an average nationally so far this year of about 2·5 per cent. Provision of additional circuits which should improve the service from Birkenhead is in hand and should be completed early in 1966. I am currently planning for an increase in trunk calls from Birkenhead of about 17 per cent. per annum; actual growth since STD was introduced has been about 13 per cent. per annum.

International Air Exhibition (Circuits)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Postmaster-General how many international telephone circuits will be available to meet the heavy traffic expected from the International Air Exhibition at Farnborough next year to France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Sweden, respectively.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I expect there to be thirty-five outgoing circuits over which it will be possible for international calls to be passed from the Air Exhibition to London. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the total circuits expected to be available at the Continental Exchange for outgoing calls to the countries specified.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that important export orders in an exhibition of this type may often depend on a really quick and reliable telephone service?

Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir.

Kiosks (Vandalism)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give figures to show the incidence of vandalism in respect of telephone kiosks; and what steps are being taken to reduce this vandalism.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Postmaster-General what is the total present annual


cost of wanton damage to public telephone kiosks as compared with the cost in the three previous years.

Mr. Joseph Slater: In 1964 there were about 100,000 cases of vandalism involving nearly half of our 75,000 call offices, about a quarter of which were subjected to repeated damage and 1965 figures will be higher. As I told the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on 27th October, my right hon. Friend is stepping up measures to safeguard the equipment and detect the offenders.
Excluding overheads and loss of revenue, the estimated cost for 1965 is £200,000. This is a percentage increase of 33⅓ per cent., 122 per cent. and 198 per cent. respectively over 1964, 1963 and 1962.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the appalling nature of this problem, would the Assistant Postmaster-General think in more drastic terms in order to find a remedy? If this rate of damage continues, would it not be proper to deny free access to call-boxes?

Mr. Slater: It is true that this has caused us great concern. It is equally true that among the suggestions put forward has even been the one that we should withdraw kiosks from the service, no matter where they are. This type of vandalism takes place in many of our major cities and is on the increase. We are doing everything we can, with the co-operation of the police and the general public, to stamp it out.

Installations and Waiting List

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Postmaster-General how many subscribers' telephone lines were installed in the last 12 months; and how many people are still on the waiting list.

Mr. Benn: Approximately 751,000 new exchange connections were supplied in the 12 months ended 30th September last as compared with 615,000 in the previous 12 months. Excluding orders in hand or under inquiry, there were about 63,000 applications on the waiting list at that date.

Captain Elliot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the task of

catching up on this backlog is satisfactory as far as it goes, the telephone under the Conservatives became not a luxury but an every-day article? Will he, therefore, tell the House what new proposals he has to clear off the final backlog?

Mr. Benn: This is largely a matter of capital investment, manufacturing, acquisition of sites, recruitment of skilled engineers and so on. It will be some time before this country has the telephone penetration which a modern technical society should have. Meanwhile, there are bound to be delays and, as the hon. Gentleman says, demand is now soaring. In the case of trunk traffic it is rising at a rate of 17 per cent. per annum compound interest.

Mr. Snow: Is it not possible for his Department to provide some way of cutting off a telephone so that there is not telephone penetration at 3 o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Benn: I really think that it would be open to objection if the Postmaster-General decided at what hours people could make calls.

Automatic Exchange (Burgh Heath)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Postmaster-General by what date the new automatic telephone exchange will be installed and operating at Burgh Heath, Surrey.

Mr. Joseph Slater: My right hon. Friend plans to open the new automatic exchange at Burgh Heath during next summer.

Captain Elliot: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the present exchange serves a most important and highly built-up area? Will he ensure that there is no delay in the opening of the new telephone exchange?

Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

Mr. Onslow: asked the Lord President of the Council why it has been found necessary to suspend the running index of Parliamentary Questions in the House of Commons Library; and when this facility will be restored.

Mr. Sharples: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to ensure that the Library of the House of Commons obtains the staff necessary to enable it to carry out its functions.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Since alternative methods of identifying Questions were available, the running index was discontinued in order to save staff. It will be for the Library Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to consider the facilities to be provided by the Library and the Staff required.

Mr. Onslow: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that though this suspension may have saved staff it has not saved time; and that it has had the effect of putting a greater burden on the reduced number of staff in the Library?

Mr. Bowden: There is probably something in this point, but the Library Sub-Committee was only set up at 10 o'clock last night—I think under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—and these matters will be looked at.

Mr. Sharples: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the difficulties in the Library, including the running of this index, are caused, I understand, by the refusal of the Treasury to agree to the appointment of staff to fill vacancies caused by temporary staff leaving? Will he please look into this matter himself?

Mr. Bowden: We have already looked into it. At the first meeting of the House of Commons Services Committee, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Library was asked to look at this matter urgently and specifically.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCE LAW

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Attorney-General whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to await the investigation by the Law Commission of Family Law before proposing any material changes in the present divorce law and jurisdiction on divorce.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): No material change in the substantive divorce law is contemplated in

advance of the preliminary examination which is being carried out by the Law Commission, but the Government intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to enable undefended divorce cases to be heard in the county courts.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a Committee was set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1964 to consider changes in divorce law and procedure, and that this Committee will be reporting early in the new year? Does he not think that it would have been better to have waited for the views of that Committee, and the views of all other bodies that have been consulted by Royal Commissions in the past, before making such a drastic change?

The Attorney-General: I am aware of the committees to which the hon. Member has referred, but the problem of jurisdiction is, in the view of my noble Friend—and, indeed, of myself—a severable and separate one, and we are satisfied that the public interest will be served by the proposed change in the arrangements as to the hearing of undefended divorce cases.

Mr. Abse: While I welcome the news that it is intended, at long last, to have divorces within the county courts in order that public expense should be saved, would it not be wiser if the substantive law were tackled so that we could enhance the dignity of marriage and the dignity of the courts, and reduce the burden on the legal aid system by frankly recognising that many undefended divorces are, in fact, divorces by mutual consent, so enabling full recognition to be given to a law which includes mutual consent?

The Attorney-General: These matters are already under consideration by the Law Commission, and a preliminary examination is being made with a view to considering, in the light of the social implications, an agency to which a full inquiry into the law relating to divorce should be referred.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Does not the Attorney-General agree that, in a matter as important as divorce, public expenditure is only one consideration, and probably a minor consideration? Does he


not accept the fact that his announcement is very controversial, and is it not a premature decision? Would it not have been wiser to have awaited the result of the Bishop of Exeter's Committee, and to have taken soundings from other interested bodies?

The Attorney-General: Public expense is certainly not the only consideration, but it is right that I should tell the House that it is estimated that about £400,000 of taxpayers' money will be saved by the proposals. But the main consideration is the greater convenience to those who are parties, to witnesses and lawyers, which will be occasioned by the availability of the greater number of places where these cases can be heard. Perhaps I should point out that of the 33,000 divorce cases heard last year, 30,000 were undefended, and the vast majority of those were heard, and heard most satisfactorily, by county court judges.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES ACT (REPORTS OF INQUIRIES)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Attorney-General how many reports of inquiries under the Companies Act have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the last 12 months on which no action has yet been taken.

The Attorney-General: Three reports have been received by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the last twelve months. In the case of one, no criminal proceedings were taken, because of difficulties of proof and because the matters alleged occurred as long ago as 1958. The other two reports, submitted to him on 23rd August and 3rd December of this year, deal with complex matters which are being investigated as a matter of urgency by the Lord Advocate and by the Director.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will set up an inquiry into the operation of the legal aid schemes.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamling: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what action he has taken with regard to the cases I have reported of hardship to people?

Sir Eric Fletcher: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee considers the Law Society's annual report on the working of the legal aid system. It can also consider any other matters referred to it. Matters that are brought to the notice of my noble Friend are considered by his Advisory Committee, and it is therefore unnecessary to make any further inquiry.

Mr. Hale: Is my hon. Friend aware that people are now being charged in contributions for litigation much larger sums than they were ever called upon to pay before legal aid was introduced? Does he know that one can still get married, I think, for seven and a tanner, but that it costs £200 to have a divorce—a rather ugly and unpleasant business? One would really have thought that the normal procedure for a breach of an ordinary contract, not solemnised by the Church, would be a little cheaper and simpler. Is it not a fact that legal aid now costs not only the community at large but the individual litigant a great deal more than before?

Sir Eric Fletcher: As my hon. Friend knows, the cost of legal aid has been rising year by year, but in view of the announcement just made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the result of transferring jurisdiction in undefended divorces to the county courts will produce a very considerable saving in those cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) ACT, 1938

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a detailed statement on the operation of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938, and on his plans to amend it.

Sir Eric Fletcher: The Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938 is, in general, working satisfactorily. There have been 109 applications to the court under the Act this year. Experience has, however, shown the need for some minor


amendments and I hope it will be possible to introduce legislation at an early date to give the court an unlimited discretion to extend the period within which an application must be made and to remove the restrictions on its power to order a lump sum payment.

Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he realise that what he calls minor amendments indicate that this Act, passed in 1938, is already antiquated? Will he take steps to make it conform more to the great social, economic and industrial improvements that have taken place in the shorter period since October, 1964?

Sir Eric Fletcher: I would agree with my hon. and learned Friend in what he says about the great improvements that have taken place since October, 1964, but I do not think that those improvements, in themselves, call for any special amendment of this Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT MAINTENANCE ORDERS

Mr. Bessell: asked the Minister without Portfolio if he will take steps to amend the legal aid rules to allow a wife, who is applying in a magistrates' court to enforce a High Court Maintenance Order, to be granted legal aid.

Sir Eric Fletcher: Applications to enforce High Court maintenance orders through the magistrates' courts are made in the first instance to the High Court itself which will, if it thinks fit, direct that the order be registered in the appropriate magistrates' court. If legal aid has been granted to obtain the order in the High Court, it will cover this application for registration.
Once the order is registered in the magistrates' court, the duty of enforcing it falls on the collecting officer of the court and the wife needs to take no formal steps to enforce the order. Therefore, legal aid is not necessary at that stage.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many instances of wives being unable to obtain enforcement due to the fact that they are not able to obtain legal aid? Will he look at this matter again, because it is one of serious concern to a great many women

who are suffering quite needless hardship?

Sir Eric Fletcher: I think I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but, as I have said, in the ordinary case a legal aid certificate governs both the registration in the magistrates' court as well as the obtaining of a decree. There are some marginal cases affecting variations which are being looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS' SPEECHES

Mr. Speaker: I am given to understand by the Press Gallery that they are having difficulty in hearing some hon. Members. The amplification system is being looked into, but it would help the reporters if hon. Members would always address the Chair. It is when hon. Members turn away from the Chair that sometimes reporters find it difficult to hear them.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to make further provision for the giving of financial assistance towards the provision of houses in Scotland; to increase the amount of contributions payable in respect of hostels under section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950; to replace certain provisions as to the withholding, reduction, suspension, postponement, discontinuing or transfer of certain annual subsidies; to make further provision for the Scottish Special Housing Association; to make provision in certain cases for the discharge or modification by the sheriff of heritable securities, charges and agreements on or relating to, an unfit house; and for matters connected with the aforesaid matters, presented by Mr. Ross; supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon and Mr. Niall MacDermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be read a second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet on Wednesday next at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Bowden.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday next, do adjourn till Tuesday 25th January.—[Mr. Bowden.]

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I suggest to the House that we are now facing one of the most dangerous crises, both national and international, since the Christmas of 1938. I therefore suggest that we should be very cautious about adjourning to 25th January. It is against the background of our economic difficulties at home, the running down of our Forces, and the fact that our major ally is engaged in a seemingly unending war in Vietnam, that I think that we should consider the potential dangers of the situation in Central Africa. I suggest that during the Recess we might well pass the point of no return and that when the House reassembles we might find ourselves so far along the road to a shooting war in Central Africa that it would be impossible to retrace our steps.
I should like three assurances from the Government before supporting the Motion. The first concerns oil sanctions. There has been a supposition in the Press supported on the wireless last night and this morning that the Prime Minister, when he goes to the United Nations, will agree to mandatory oil sanctions. There have also been reports of a possible blockade of the port of Beira in order to enforce these sanctions. This could be regarded by the Portuguese as an act of war. [Interruption.] The military blockade of a foreign port has always been accepted in the past to be an act of war.
Secondly, there is the possibility during the Recess of United Nations intervention in Zambia. It is reported this morning that Zambian representatives are visiting both Washington and Moscow in order to discuss such intervention.
Thirdly, the increased pressure from the Afro-Asian nations on Britain may well lead to the despatch of British troops into Rhodesia to "protect"—I say that word in inverted commas—the southern part of the Kariba Dam.
I submit that all these three matters could well involve us in a shooting war and that this could happen during the

Recess, and that it would be difficult to support this Motion unless we have a commitment from the Government that the House will be recalled in any of these three eventualities. So far we have merely had a statement from the Government that they do not propose in any circumstances, as I understand it, to talk to Mr. Smith or to any members of his Cabinet. Because of Afro-Asian pressures the whole situation in Rhodesia has escalated from the deprivation of the advantages enjoyed by members of the Commonwealth to a full economic blockade. I believe these same pressures could cause a further escalation and bring about the three dangers to which I have referred.
I hope that the Government will be able to give us a categorical assurance that neither oil sanctions, nor the movement of British troops into Rhodesia, nor United Nations intervention in Zambia, will be undertaken during the Recess. I should like a firm undertaking that if they consider that any of these three matters are necessary they will recall Parliament.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Is it in order, on this simple Motion to adjourn for the Christmas Recess in recognition of a Christian festival, for the hon. Gentleman to seize the opportunity to review all these matters?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished Parliamentarian of many years' experience, must know that this is not such a very simple Motion. If the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) goes out of order, I shall call him to order.

Mr. Wall: I think I have made my point clear to the House. I hope that we shall be able to receive assurances from the Government on these three specific issues.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Most of us who rise on these occasions do so feeling that they have something of a tongue in their cheeks and they are a little conscious of a feeling of dishonesty about it. I shall be happy to leave this place. I shall welcome a holiday. However, I have sought over some years to introduce Measures for the benefit of


the suffering people of Oldham, people of Oldham who suffer from industrial disease, people of Oldham who are being victimised by a Welfare State system which seems to me to have now reached the stage of being a colossal swindle. Most of them are being compelled to pay very much more and they are getting very much less than they are entitled to under the contributions. Anyone who looks at the figures cannot doubt that. Under the management of hon. Members opposite we lost something like 10 per cent. of the value of the accumulated fund by faulty investment. One hundred million £s went on the National Insurance Fund. Ten million £s went on the industrial injuries Fund. Industrial injuries are really getting worse and worse.
I do not want to use words of a pejorative nature. I remember that my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance used to speak with passion about the suffering of people with lung disease. In those days there were coal mines in her constituency and she was very deeply concerned about pneumoconiosis, of which I personally have a certain practical knowledge. Some of us have seen what is happening in Oldham. With £100 million in the fund, one full-time pension was granted last year to one sufferer from byssinosis in the whole of England and more applications are being made this year for review than have ever been made in history. I am trying to put it moderately. I am trying to put it uncontroversially.
Two or three years ago the Tory Whips objected to this Measure. I should not like to express myself about this in the sort of terms I would normally use in conversation, because they would invite your reprehension, Mr. Speaker. I went on the wireless and expressed my views. Last year the Labour Whips objected to this Measure—[Interruption.]—rather more decorously, I thought. Then I was subjected to a piece of psycho-drama. When they withdrew their objection; when indeed I—innocent; simple; the sort of good-natured ass that I am—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should pursue the history of the Measure he is seeking to advocate. He must link his argument to why we should not meet as late as 25th January.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate your rebuke, of course, Mr. Speaker. I had it in mind to recall the words—I hope that this is not disrespectful—of an even more well-known Horace:
"Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci Lectorem…"—
perhaps I might substitute the word "auditorem"—
…delectando pariterque monendo

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the benefit of the House, and to avoid any ambiguity or suggestion of undue familiarity with the Chair, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will translate the passage from the Latin poet.

Mr. Hale: You compel me, Sir, to immodesty, because, paraphrasing it, Horace said that he preferred to please his audience at the same time as instructing them, and I had not myself wished to put that into English. He also said,
Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio
that is to say, he was unhappy when he tried to be brief because that was the moment when he became expansive.
I return to the question of byssinosis and the end of that unhappy story. I make no criticism whatever of the Labour Whips—on the whole, I think that we have had the best Whips I have ever known, though that is not saying much—but I was told that there was not time, that I was faulty in my timing and it was too late to get the Measure through. I was told that there was the judges' salaries Measure which had to be got through ready for 1st April next year, which has not yet arrived, and there was something about tinned salmon in which an hon. Gentleman opposite was interested but to whose Bill, in a moment of passion, I had unfortunately objected. I have since regretted this manifestation of opposition. But the salmon Measure had to be got through because a Minister approved of it. My byssinosis Measure could not be got through—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not now detail the Measures which have gone through. He must direct his argument to the one he wants to have passed.

Mr. Hale: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Had I had your guidance earlier to keep me on the strait and narrow path, I might have got further


than I did. I was tempted into diversion, and this has prevented me from making the progress which I might have made.
I was making, clearly and briefly, I hope, the point that, if there is no time under the present arrangements for dealing with the byssinosis Bill, we ought to consider taking time out of the proposed Recess for that purpose. My Bill in Committee took exactly six minutes. Four and a half minutes were taken by the junior Minister who wanted to explain that there was a free vote, as I had already got everyone in the Committee in my favour, and one and a half minutes were taken by me in moving a vote of thanks to the Chair. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to say that the concluding stages might have been got through in ten minutes. I say at once to hon. Members opposite, despite their reactionary views on general matters, that they were extremely helpful in this case. Those of them who did not like the Bill agreed to stay away. So we had what one could call virtual Parliamentary unanimity.
Half an hour would do it. Two hours would do it. Half a day would do it. We are now talking about adjourning for five weeks. Could not we adjourn for half a day less and let something be done for the people of Oldham who are genuinely suffering and genuinely being swindled, and who are very unhappy about their treatment by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance? They feel—again I express it diminuendo—that they have not seen in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance—even the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) need not look pleased about it because this is the first compliment I have ever paid to him—a Minister under this Government who understands their problem. I do not think that, in the long list of Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance, the present Minister stands out, and I do not at the moment feel that her Ministry is justifying the confidence which the House has reposed in it. I put it to the House, therefore, now that we are considering whether it is necessary to adjourn for 35 days, that we could make it 34 and pass the byssinosis Bill.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I want an undertaking from the Leader of the House concerning the situation in Vietnam. I realise that there is to be a foreign affairs debate next week, but there is in Vietnam now the danger that the United States forces may decide to take stronger military action which would, I believe, have unfortunate effects on neighbouring countries. Should the situation in Vietnam deteriorate to such an extent that it became obvious—it is not yet obvious to all hon. Members or to the country, perhaps, because not sufficient has been reported in the Press—that the United States Government had to make a further major military commitment in Vietnam and felt obliged to take action against targets in the city of Hanoi, the Government ought not to hesitate, in those serious circumstances, to seek to recall the House.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: In the normal course of events, I should agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and, like him, look forward to the Christmas Recess. But there is a strong case for a more careful definition of some of the more serious aspects of Government policy before we can agree to pass the Motion. Seldom before has the House had to contemplate a Motion of this kind at a time of greater uncertainty in many aspects of policy at home and abroad. There is great uncertainty in matters of foreign policy, defence and economic affairs. One thinks particularly, of course, of the uncertainty prevailing about Central Africa to which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred.
Those of us on this side who have given a generous measure of support to the Government in their policies regarding Rhodesia have felt nevertheless a growing anxiety at the lack of definition of the Government's aims. I trust that the Lord President has carefully considered the important article on this subject in today's issue of The Times. The situation is really—

Mr. Speaker: A general criticism or indictment of Government policy is possible at most times, but not on this Motion. The hon. Gentleman must link


his remarks to the question whether we should break up until the date mentioned in the Motion.

Mr. Gower: I am not making a general indictment, Mr. Speaker. I am arguing that, before we take the serious step of agreeing to the prolonged Recess proposed, we should have from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Government will, during the remaining days before the House rises, arrange for a careful re-examination and re-definition of the Government's aims regarding the state of affairs in Central Africa. I am not saying that we shall disagree with those aims, but we want to know what they are before we adjourn. Further, the right hon. Gentleman should give an assurance that, if there is any marked change in Government policy during the Recess, the House will be recalled.
The Lord President cannot deny that there have been changes of policy since we first debated the problem of Central Africa. There has been a change of emphasis. We started off relatively united as a House in taking, perhaps, minor steps, but they have gradually become more arid more like a sledgehammer, and we do not know where they will end. We do not know what the consequences may be. We have given the Government general support, and we hope to be able to continue to give that support, but we cannot do it in a vacuum. I hope, therefore, that the Lord President will give us the assurances for which I ask.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said that hon. Members who speak on this Motion sometimes do so with tongue in cheek. That may or may not be so. However the case may be for him, there is no doubt about the effectiveness of his tongue. If we could listen to speeches every day like the one that he has just delivered, it would be easier to stay for longer hours in this House than we are required to do at the moment.
I want to say something in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I believe that the crisis in Rhodesia is developing and changing daily. I am sure that everyone, whatever his

views, would agree that the risks are great and will increase during the Recess. Although we have allowed the Government wide powers under the Southern Rhodesia Act, it is nevertheless the duty of the House to examine every Measure brought before it under those general powers. A mistake, particularly as the crisis develops, could be fatal to the happiness and future of all the peoples of Central Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice made it plain that two specific risks could present themselves. The first is on the question of oil sanctions, which it is clear that the Prime Minister must and will discuss in New York and, indeed, policy will be forming now about it. Secondly, there is the talk—happily not from the Government Benches—of the use of force.
In other words, we are dealing with a situation escalating dangerously. It is clear that we would not be doing our duty as a House if we did not at least make a serious attempt to get an assurance from the Government on these two specific points or on any other major changes of policy and to seek also from the Government an undertaking not to bring such changes about or to introduce any other sanctions while the House is in Recess.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House bear in mind the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure concerning the reform of the Estimates Committee? Does he recall that the minority view was expressed in the Report to the effect that we might consider emulating the example of the Canadian Parliament, which is about to have sittings of specialist committees which can investigate major matters concerning supply when the Hause as a whole is in Recess? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we could examine this system for future reference?

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I would remind the House that there are important matters upon the Order Paper for today. Mr. Eldon Griffiths.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Following your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not being discourteous. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I was rebuking him.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to observe that there is an extraordinary discrepancy between what we hear from the Leader of the House each week during questions on business—when he says, in effect, to hon. Members who want certain legislation or have speeches to make on constituency matters that they cannot be heard by the House because there is no time—and this Motion in which the Government propose that we should leave the House for 35 days.
I understand and appreciate the Government's desire to be free perhaps from the need to come to the House to answer questions. Ministers may well need a rest more than do other right hon. and hon. Members. But surely the Leader of the House will have some regard to the reforms which are not undertaken and to the arguments of hon. Members on both sides that are not heard because there is no time. Surely it is right that, instead of going away for 35 days, the right hon. Gentleman should consider 33 days or 32 days. Would not that be sufficiently long for Ministers to have a rest and for hon. Members to visit their constituencies?
I would also support the arguments put by my hon. Friends on the subject of Vietnam, where escalation is a real danger, on Rhodesia, where events may not any longer be under control, and on the domestic economic situation, in which, as far as I can see, the Government are not in command.
In view of the Vietnam situation, it is wrong that the Foreign Secretary should not have the advice of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to conduct his policy on Vietnam during this period unless he has the benefit of the hon. Member for Ashfield's advice, together with that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Equally, on the subject of economic policy, I feel that the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer must have the advice of all the various gradations of opinion within his own party. He might feel lost without that assistance.
I urge the Leader of the House not to deprive Ministers for 35 days of the counsel that they could get from their own side. They should not be deprived, either, of the wisdom they would so frequently be offered by my right hon. Friends, in particular on the economic situation. As I recall it, if they had not had the advice of my right hon. Friends, the country would have been in an even worse condition. It is for these reasons that I ask the Leader of the House to think again and perhaps send us away for a little less time than he proposes.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Walter Monslow: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be influenced by the sheer undiluted nonsense we are listening to now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am directing my observations to hon. Members opposite and I want to put them quite clearly. All of us are conscious of the pressing problems at home and abroad, but it is a little nauseating that hon. Members opposite should take this attitude when they did not have the courage to vote against the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order last night.
Their attitude is sheer poppycock. If they want to challenge the issue and are so troubled about what is happening in Rhodesia and elsewhere, let them take this Motion to a vote. Let them also say when they would like to come back. On New Year's Eve?

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I know that there is very important business to be discussed this afternoon, but I want to make one simple point which seems to me to be an effective answer to those hon. Members who object to the length of the Recess. They can remain in London, in England, instead of going off to the Caribbean. By doing so, they will be at the beck and call of the Government should they recall Parliament at a moment's notice. That is the complete answer to those hon. Members who object to the Motion.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: I apologise for keeping the House from its main business for a few moments longer, but I share the anxiety of many of my hon. Friends that we should be asked to go into Recess for so long at a time when the Rhodesian crisis is deepening in the way it is.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred to certain health problems. This morning, I was advised by a doctor of great repute, who recently visited Salisbury, that we have cut off United Kingdom aid and treatment which was being given to 75 cases of spinal tuberculosis in Salisbury—all of the patients, incidentally, being African. I am also told that the World Health Organisation, of which Britain is a member, has suspended its anti-malarial activities in Rhodesia. I cite this as a symptom of a depening crisis. It is not the only symptom. Political warfare from Zambia, which we are now protecting with the Royal Air Force, has been considerably stepped up. I want to give two very short quotations to the House from a transcript which I have received, monitoring a Zambia Radio broadcast in African dialect to Rhodesia. The broadcast says:
I say to you, as you are aware, the whole country is full of telephone wires and electricity cables and is full of similar things. From today all these things must be cut, the telephone wires must be cut, the electricity cables must be cut.
The broadcast goes on:
We say that all travelling vehicles must be stoned"——

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. Is one entitled to ask the source of the information given by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Amery: I can give that. The broadcast goes on to say:
We say that all travelling vehicles"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) was asking courteously for the source of the quotation.

Mr. Amery: The source is that it was broadcast over Zambia Radio at 11.45 a.m., Friday 26th November, 1965. It goes on to say:

We say that all travelling vehicles must be stoned, must be hit with whatever you have in your hands, and to the people who are inside do what you are able to do, as you would squash a fly or a louse in your hand, do these things.
I cite these as evidence of how serious the situation is. As we consider the question of whether the House should separate next week for 35 days or more, I think that we have to consider not just our opinions as to how serious this crisis is, but we have to look at the views of the most unbiased judges we can find. I was very struck last weekend when two very distinguished Rhodesians, known to be political opponents of Mr. Smith, Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead, said, in important articles in the Press of this country, that they thought that disaster lay ahead within a few weeks. I understand that one of those gentlemen, in a private conversation, has talked of a second Boer War if we do not settle matters within a few weeks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), with his very great experience in these matters, in his speech at Glasgow two days ago, also spoke of the great urgency of reaching a settlement before things go too far, before there is either racial war or before sanctions have proved to be a total fiasco and rebellion triumphs. It is very important that we should not under-estimate the gravity of the situation and what is going to happen in the next few weeks. I align myself solidly behind the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, and if the Government's policy were in line with what he said I would not feel the same anxiety as I do. But I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his statements to the House on Friday, made it clear that his policy was one of settling the Rhodesian business on terms of the unconditional surrender of the Rhodesian Front Government and Parliament. I find it very difficult to believe that we will be wise to separate if this is the Government's policy.
There are three specific question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council before we move to the next business. There has been a great deal of talk in the Press about the imposition of a mandatory oil embargo, and I should like an assurance from him that nothing of this


kind will be done without an opportunity of debate in this House. I cannot insist that the Government should follow my advice as to what should be done, but I can ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that no action of this kind will be brought forward without consulting Parliament.
There is likewise continuing pressure that either a British or Commonwealth Force should be sent to the Rhodesian side of the Zambesi, where the Kariba power installations are situated. Here again I would like an assurance that there is no question of such action being countenanced by the Government, at any rate, until the matter has been brought for discussion before the House. More generally, I would like an assurance that any major new steps, any further tightening of the sanctions, will not be brought forward, and will not be accepted by the Government without first of all recalling the House and consulting Members.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: While it is true that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this bench would find ourselves differing, to some extent, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) on the subject of Rhodesia, the force of his argument cannot be denied. Both in Washington and throughout the world the Rhodesian crisis is regarded as a very serious threat to world peace. While we have done all in our power to support the Government, we have not given them an open cheque. It would be quite wrong for major measures to be taken, such as oil sanctions or any other steps, even though we might be able to support them, without the House of Commons being able to debate them.
In view of the nature of this crisis, and in view of the effect that it is having upon world opinion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council to consider seriously whether it is right, whether it will add support to the Government's case throughout the world, and whether it will have the support of the nation, for this House to go on a 35-day holiday.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: My hon. and right hon. Friends have raised

a number of very important points. There are clearly signs of deterioration both at home and abroad. There are the problems of Vietnam, Rhodesia and the state of the economy. All of these points have been very well and rightly taken. I would ask the Lord President of the Council if he will deal with the question of oil sanctions. I understand that there is some possibility of a statement being made this week in the United Nations. Will there be a statement made to this House next week, before we rise? There will be plenty of time to make such a statement. Secondly, will the Lord President give an undertaking that no major change in the vital question of our attitude to Rhodesia will be made without a recall of this House?

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I would like to raise a new point. We have all been shocked and grieved by the death of a number of our Members. We do not know, but it may be that these deaths, or some of them, were caused by the strenuousness of the Parliamentary sittings. I, and many other Members have no wish at present to die for our country. I want to live for it, and in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Lord President said recently that there is no way that he could see of obviating all-night sittings such as occur in the summer, would he consider whether adjourning for three weeks instead of five, and saving ten full Parliamentary days, might get over this difficulty and obviate these late-night sittings in the summer months?

4.11 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): May I first of all correct what seems to be a wrong impression in the House, namely that this is an unduly long Recess. It is not. It is the average length for a Christmas Recess. The Government feel that it is important for the length of this Recess to continue, while it may be necessary later on, at Easter and Whitsun, to shorten the normal Recesses. To meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), there would be little point in the House sitting during January, when we should normally be away on recess, unless we had the Finance Bill in front of us, which we should not have at that time.
This has been an important debate, and serious matters have been raised. There is no doubt that we are going away for the Christmas Recess when the position in Central Africa and South-East Asia is extremely serious. The situation is changing almost daily and it is absolutely right that there should be every facility for the House to be recalled if necessary, even before Christmas, or immediately afterwards, to deal with any situation which may arise. Provision already exists for this as the House is aware. This is not the first occasion in our history that the House has gone away when there has been a crisis in front of us.
I would remind the House that under Standing Order No. 117 a Minister of the Crown, on representation to you, Mr. Speaker, can ask for your authority to recall the House at any time during the Recess. Ministers of the Crown of all Governments have always made themselves available to representations through the official Opposition, or unofficial Opposition, or private back bench Members on these occasions. I have no doubt that that would be done again. What it would be impossible for me to do—no Government would do it—would be to give a firm assurance this afternoon that the House would be recalled before any Government action was taken in any sphere.
The Government must be responsible for governing, and will be so. But we know from experience, both in opposition and in government, that the Opposition are in close touch with the Government and that discussions take place. No. 10, Downing Street is always available to them. It was when we were in opposition; it is now when we are in government. It is impossible to give a firm undertaking that no action will be taken unless the House is recalled.

Mr. Gower: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that nobody on this side of the House suggested that any Government action should be the signal for the recall of Parliament? What was suggested was that any major change in policy should be the signal for recall.

Mr. Bowden: If any major change in Government policy were imminent, it would certainly be obvious to the Opposition, who would immediately get in touch with the Prime Minister and ask for the recall of Parliament. This has

been done before. I have had the experience of asking for the recall of Parliament, and of having had it refused. But there is no doubt that there is the opportunity to ask for it.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman said that if any major change of Government policy were impending it would be obvious to the Opposition. That does not follow. That is laying the responsibility on the Opposition to ask for the recall of the House. That is surely the responsibility not of the Opposition but of the Government. The point put to the right hon. Gentleman was that if the Government proposed a major change of policy on the question of Rhodesia, which is of fundamental and vital importance, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to recall Parliament.

Mr. Bowden: If any major change takes place in our policy on Rhodesia, it will have to be a Government decision and a Government action. I think that it would be obvious, through all the normal procedures of the Press, that such action had been taken. But, as has happened time and again, particularly on the Central Africa issue, the Prime Minister has asked the Leader of the Opposition to see him, and he has done so. I have no doubt that this will continue to be the way in which the situation is handled.
We all hope very sincerely that nothing will happen between the adjournment and the return of the House which will necessitate recalling the House. On the other hand, we should face the fact that the situation in Rhodesia is changing, and it may be that as a result of the action already taken, while the problem will not have been solved, the illegal régime in Rhodesia will have come to an end by the time that we return.
I should like to refer briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said. It is appropriate, in this season of the year, that he should draw the attention of the House to the aged and sick and particularly people who are suffering from diseases like byssinosis. The Government have a pretty good record in this field in the last and current session of Parliament. We have just passed a Bill which will give increased rates of workmen's compensation to those excluded under the 1948 Act. This is a continuing process. I


am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill did not get a Third Reading and the Royal Assent. However, the Government provide 20 full days and four half days a year for Private Members' Time. This should be compared with the 56 days which any Government have for legislation. This is not a bad balance.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that the Government are serious when I say that we will watch the situation very carefully during the Recess. I hope that it will not be necessary to recall the House, but if it is necessary because of changes in Central Africa or South-East Asia we shall not hesitate to do so. However, I hope that the House will accept the Motion and that we can proceed with the business.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday next, do adjourn till Tuesday 25th January.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Housing subsidies have been paid to local authorities in one form or another since 1919. Their amount and the method of payment have varied according to the purposes thought important by the Government of the day. Under the Acts of 1919 and 1923 subsidies were paid, and are still being paid, towards the calculated loss met by local authorities providing housing at reasonable rents. In the mid-1920s the idea of a unit subsidy per house was developed, and as long ago as 1924 subsidies as high as £9 a year per house for the towns and £12 10s. in agricultural areas were being paid. But in the 1930s the unit subsidy was dropped and authorities were paid on the basis of the number of people rehoused from slums.
In 1946, the unit subsidy per dwelling was reintroduced, and it is worth remembering that Mr. Harold Macmillan, when he was Minister of Housing, increased it sharply from £16 to £26 14s. a house at the beginning of 1952 when the attainment of a target of 300,000 houses a year depended on the performance of the public sector. In 1955, the subsidy for houses provided to meet general need was reduced to £10, and in 1956 it was dropped altogether. From then until 1961 subsidies were concentrated on slum clearance, overspill and the housing of transferred workers and the elderly.
In 1961, the subsidy for housing for general needs was reintroduced. The basic subsidy was, and still is, payable at either of two rates: £8 or £24 a year, depending on the outgoings from the housing revenue account and the income which it was assumed to be capable of getting. All this is in terms of basic subsidies.
The House will not want its time taken up by my giving a detailed account of the supplements which have been introduced and varied from time to time to


meet particular items of high cost, though some of them have a very long history. Subsidies for flats on expensive sites, for example, have been payable since 1930.
The broad case for the Bill is this. First, if subsidy rates were right in 1961, they certainly are not right now. They have been completely outstripped by rising costs. The average tender price of a three-bedroomed house increased from £1,700 in the first quarter of 1961 to £2,500 in the second quarter of 1965. Secondly, a flat rate unit subsidy payable irrespective of the actual cost of the house leaves too much burden on the authorities in areas where costs are especially high. Thirdly, a new system is needed to help authorities with a very heavy programme ahead of them.
Fourthly, some part of the rising cost of houses is due to rising standards. Getting on for half the houses now built by local authorities incorporate the space standards in the Parker Morris Report. It is right that the subsidies should encourage the development of these better standards in houses. Houses built now will be lived in by our grandchildren. We can aim only for the best and hope that we get them. Fifthly, an essential requirement of increased house production—especially where increased production requires industrialised building—is the forward planning of housing programmes and the placing of long-run contracts. For years, uncertainty about interest rates likely to be payable on houses yet to be built has put a curse on long-term planning. This uncertainty has to be alleviated.
Before I refer to the Bill, I want to say a few words briefly about the report of a working party consisting of Ministry officials and officers of local authorities which was appointed in May, 1963, by my right hon. Friend's predecessor to consider the cost of housing to local authorities and to collect information on the rent-paying capacity of council tenants.
The working party reported immediately before the last General Election. One of its main findings was that, although the historic purpose of housing subsidies had been to bridge the gap between the cost of housing and the rent which poorer tenants could afford to pay, local authority rent policies often

spread the subsidy too thinly and rents did not often enough reflect individual needs. My right hon. Friends have accepted this view and, in paragraph 41 of their White Paper, have served notice that in association with the newer and more generous subsidies they will be looking to all authorities to adopt rent rebate schemes designed to put the benefit where it is most needed.
The working party also called attention to regional differences in local authority rents which emerge from the inability of a unit subsidy to reflect the tremendous variation of land and building costs in recent years. Although it was only a fact-finding body, the working party considered the principles on which a subsidy differentiating between areas might operate.
Two possibilities foreseen by the working party are, first, that there might be some elaboration of the 1961 system under which the basic subsidy is paid at different rates according to the state of the housing revenue account; and second, that existing subsidies might be called in, pooled with the new subsidies, and redistributed. The working party pointed out, however, that either system must be linked with a test of the rent resources of the authority and it confessed that it was unable to find a better test than a formula based upon gross values.
That was not a recommendation, but was a statement of the facts on which the experts had been invited to report. Its use as a basis for action would present any Housing Minister, whatever his political views, with two points of great difficulty. The withdrawal of existing subsidies raises a serious question of public faith, but, more importantly, the only test of resources that the experts could find was that of gross values. Experience in the 15 months since they reported has shown more and more that, used on a national scale, this is a poor test. Locally, for example, as a basis for standard rents under a rent rebate scheme, it is not unfair; it gives a comparison between the values of a stock of houses which, unlike rented housing in the private sector, are fairly similar in pattern and standard. But as between two authorities at different ends of the country, gross value too often varies for historical reasons which have no relation to the present resources of tenants.
The Government have, therefore, thought it fairer to relate the new subsidies more directly to costs. If the House will bear with me, I shall demonstrate that the main instrument for this will be a new basic subsidy which will vary with cost and give the most help with authorities which have the highest costs and the biggest programmes.
I turn now to the Bill, on which the House is entitled to have a brief account from me, stopping short of points of detail which are more appropriate for examination in Committee. Clause 1 settles the general application and timing of the subsidies. They are to be payable to local authorities, to new town authorities, to housing associations and new town corporations which provide subsidised housing by arrangement with local authorities. The new rates of subsidy will apply to housing in contracts formally approved by the authority after the publication of the White Paper.
Some authorities have complained that that will rob them of the benefit of the improved susidies on houses for which they approved the tenders before 25th November. The short answer to this is that a line has to be drawn somewhere. In 1956, when subsidies were reduced, they were reduced only for tenders approved after the due date since the then Government took the view that it would be a breach of faith to alter subsidies on tenders approved in the expectation of the old subsidies. This cuts both ways. One cannot have one rule when subsidies are being increased and another when they are being reduced.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I was grateful to my hon. Friend for looking at me with his customary benevolence, and I was encouraged by it. He has made the dreadful statement about the line having to be drawn somewhere. It should not, however, be drawn in the wrong place. Oldham, being a progressive authority with blanket approval, signed contracts for £1,350,000 worth of houses between 2nd and 18th November. The loss to Oldham will be of the order of £30,000 a year so long as the present interest rates prevail. That is monstrous, because these are contracts in which no brick will be laid until next year. Will my

hon. Friend deal with this point, of which I have given him notice?

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend has given me notice of the point and it is a fair one. I understand the position of Oldham, but I ask my hon. Friend to look at the situation from the national level. At this moment of time, 190,000 council houses are under construction in England and Wales. At some stage, it may well be argued from either side of the House that these new subsidies should be paid on these houses when they are completed. That certainly is an argument. There will always be an argument about the date on which the subsidies are brought in.
If my hon. Friend argues the case for Oldham, it must also be argued for every other area. For houses under construction and not yet completed, the cost to the Government over and above what we are already contemplating would be another £11 million. I know that we are creating an anomaly, but this always happens when a date is introduced for something new. Nevertheless, the principle as far as we are concerned is, I think, established.
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, support me in saying that the subsidies will be a tremendous help—to Oldham and elsewhere—in the future. This is not the last that we have heard of tenders from Oldham. They will be coming forward with more tenders. They will be encouraged by my Department so to do and these subsidies will benefit them.

Mr. John M. Temple: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) mentioned an annual figure. In his reply, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned a total of £l1 million. Was that meant to be an annual figure?

Mr. Mellish: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) is fair one. His council has already submitted tenders to my Department. They have been approved and loan sanction has been granted. My hon. Friend was saying that the tenders were only recent and that if they had been effected after 25th November, they would qualify for the new subsidies proposed in the Bill. Unfortunately, as we have written the Bill—we shall argue the case in Committee—the houses will not qualify


because the tenders were already approved before that date.
I was making the simple point that if we argue about the date of introduction, we could widen the scope of the of the argument. At present, some 190,000 council houses are being built. It may well be said that every one of them when completed should qualify for the new subsidy. This was where I made the point about the £11 million of extra cost.

Mr. Temple: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but my simple question was whether his figure of £11 million was an annual or a total figure.

Mr. Mellish: It is £11 million per annum. That would be the cost of the new subsidies for the 190,000 council houses which are now under construction if all were allowed to qualify.
The biggest single innovation in the Bill is the aggregate cost subsidy in Clauses 2 and 3. The Government have moved away from a basic unit subsidy where the same amount was payable on the cheap and dear dwelling alike. The new basic subsidy will bridge the gap between the actual loan charges on the houses built by the authority in the year and the loan charges it would have had to pay if it had been able to borrow at 4 per cent. If borrowing rates go down, so will the subsidy. If the rate were to go down to 4 per cent., the entire bill for basic subsidy would be wiped out. I hope that the House will not regard that as a dismal prospect. If that were to happen, it would be a spectacular sign of prosperity.
As a measure of simplification suggested by the local authority associations themselves, the higher of these two rates will not be calculated separately for every single authority. The Minister will undertake an annual fact-finding exercise and specify by order, subject to negative resolution of this House, a representative rate or rates. He needs power to specify more than one rate because the borrowing arrangements for new towns, for example, are different from the borrowing arrangements for local authorities.
Clauses 4 to 9 are all under a heading "Subsidies for individual dwellings". For the most part they continue, with or without adjustment, provisions in previous Acts for subsidies to meet special costs.

In considering their value, it needs to be borne in mind that the new basic "interest-rate" subsidy will apply across the whole range of housing cost, and that the supplements in these Clauses will be superimposed on the basic subsidy.
Clause 4 relates to high flats. For blocks up to six storeys, the scale will be the same as under present legislation, but will be enhanced in value by being additional to the basic subsidy. For seven storeys or more, the increases provided in present legislation have been abolished. With the increased use of industrialised building methods, it is no longer true, as it was as recently as 1961, that building very high is very much more expensive than building to six or eight storeys. As my right hon. Friend has said publicly, he will not encourage higher building purely for its own sake. It is essential to have high building in the great cities and conurbations, but each of the applications made for higher building will be watched by my right hon. Friend.
Clause 5 covers two subsidies, in subsection (1) a subsidy for authorities whose resources are insufficient to provide houses which they urgently need to provide, and in subsection (2) an incentive subsidy for the housing of transferred workers. As to the first, the Housing Act, 1961, provides for a subsidy for authorities whose resources are small, but this turns upon an inflexible formula related to gross value, which itself has proved to be a very poor test and it is thought that a discretionary subsidy to be worked under rules yet to be worked out with the local authority associations may do better justice. As to the second, it is obviously right that, in so far as our economic prosperity depends on industrial mobility, the Government should be able to encourage the provision of the extra housing on which mobility so often depends.
Clause 6 continues a subsidy which, though small in amount, has since 1946 been very helpful to local authorities who have had to build houses on sites liable to mining subsidence.
Clause 7 continues, with an adjustment related to increased costs, the one housing subsidy which is solely and exclusively directed to the preservation of amenity.


It was first introduced in 1949 by the late Aneurin Bevan with the strong support of the late Sir Stafford Cripps. It is an incentive to local authorities, where ordinary brick and tile houses would be out of character with the surroundings, to spend whatever extra cost might be involved in the use of materials or special designs to keep the new houses in harmony with their environment.
Clauses 8 and 9 revise the supplementary subsidy for overspill housing. Under the present arrangement the Minister pays £12 a year for 15 years for each dwelling provided under an approved town development scheme and may recover half from the exporting authority. Now the supplement is to be doubled, but for a period reduced to 10 years, and separated into two distinct components. The Minister will pay £12 a year for houses provided under a scheme of this kind, and if he does so the authority providing the house can claim an equal contribution from the authority from whose area the new tenant comes, subject to conditions in Clause 9 which are designed to relate this second contribution to the relief of housing need in the sending area.
One short point on that—my right hon. Friend and myself have certainly discovered that many of those who have been going into new towns have not been the sort of people for whom the new towns were decided in principle. The first principle for anybody going into a new town taking London overspill must be his need for housing; the housing need of that person must be paramount, and my right hon. Friend has decided to set up a committee to investigate how this can be taken into account. He has given me some responsibility for this. We shall be looking at this question in connection with this Clause.
Clause 10 revises the subsidy for expensive sites. Here again, the House should be reminded that under the new proposal for basic subsidy the supplement will be superimposed on a basic subsidy payable over the whole range of cost. This, with the changes in the pattern of cost, have produced three important changes. First, the "floor" has been raised by making the subsidy payable on net land costs of £4,000 an acre or more, whereas under the present arrangement it is payable on the combined cost of land and site ser-

vices. Second, there is an increase in the scale of subsidy payable on land costing more than £50,000 an acre. This will be specially important in London. Third, the combination of new basic subsidy and expensive site subsidy will mean that at present borrowing rates land costing more than £20,000 an acre will attract a subsidy of more than 75 per cent. of the cost of buying it. Obviously, there is a point to be watched here. So subsections (1) and (2) provide that if the two subsidies combined exceed 75 per cent. of the cost the excess is to be payable at the Minister's discretion, depending on the likely rent or rate burden.
Clause 11 will allow the Minister to make advances recoverable later against the expensive site subsidy payable on the most expensive land. This again, will be very important to London where, whether they like it or not, local authorities often have to piece together land acquired a long time in advance.
Clause 12 contains the Minister's general power by affirmative Resolution order to alter the general levels of subsidy payable under the Bill. For 10 years after the passage of the Bill he will not be able to alter retrospectively subsidies payable on housing provided in the 10-year period.

Captain Walter Elliot: May I ask a question on this Clause? The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to ascertaining that subsidies go to people who really need them. He did not say how. I suppose some local authorities may be more conscientious in doing this than others. Is Clause 12 related at all to local authorities who do or do not see that subsidy goes to people who need it?

Mr. Mellish: No. I do not think that would be the interpretation. I propose at the end of my speech to make a tremendous oration about these things if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will just let me alone, and I can assure him that as Clause 12 will be considered in Committee he will get the answers to anything which he wants to ask.
Clause 13 brings together the provisions in a number of past Housing Acts under which subsidies could either be stopped or reduced if subsidised housing was no longer being used for its original subsidised purpose or could be transferred if


the housing passed on to another authority. This work of consolidation has enabled some minor anomalies to be removed, which, again, we shall explain in Committee.
Clause 14 increases a grant payable for the provision of hostels. This could be particularly important for the housing of immigrants.
The remaining Clauses are mainly technical arid interpretation.
This, I think the House will agree, is as full an account as time permits and as a Second Reading debate seems to require. Hon. Members themselves will want to scrutinise it closely in Standing Committee and I give notice that the Government themselves may wish to propose Amendments in the light of further discussions with the local authority associations, which, though they are thought to welcome the proposals in principle, obviously could not properly be consulted about t he detail.
This Bill reflects, I think, the very real shortage of rented accommodation in Britain. The Milner-Holland Report, which we debated, made it perfectly clear that there is an acute shortage of rented housing, particularly in London, and by implication, in all the other great cities. I am not going over that again now except to say that today, as we stand here debating this Bill, debating whether or not there is a need—because this is what this debate will be about—to encourage local authorities to build, in the great cities and conurbations in particular, there are 200,000 families in London who have not got a home of their own. That is a measure of the task. I think we must ask all Members of the House who get up to speak to say quite clearly whether they think that London authorities need monetary help if they are to build and build fast.
My right hon. Friend has given me special responsibility for London's housing and I have issued a London housing programme. I want to refer by way of illustration to two constituencies only, the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition, Bexley, and the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). To Bexley we have given a programme for the next four years, because of its needs of 1,900

houses or flats to be built as against 773 which it built in the previous four years—an increase of 146 per cent. In Kingston they built 413 flats and houses in the last four years. We have approved a programme for next year of 1,425, which is an increase of 245 per cent. I want to give an illustration of what this subsidies Bill will mean in outer London. Bexley and Kingston will be lucky if they are able to provide family housing for less than £4,000 to £5,000 a house or flat, including land. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can deny these figures. Under the proposals in this Bill the basic subsidy alone for Bexley and for Kingston will rise from £24 a dwelling, as it is at the moment, to nearly £90 a dwelling for a £4,000 house and for a £5,000 house from £24 to £110.
I must ask those who come to speak in this debate, and particularly from that side of the House, do they say—does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames say—their constituents should not have this increased finance? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that Kingston is so running its housing list that the wrong people are on it? He had better say something of that character because, if the Bill is defeated tonight, the subsidies will be denied to two authorities in London who badly need them.
It may be that the subsidies are not liked because they are the pump primer to a massively increased local authority housing programme. But how are any Government going to be able to help the two to three million people living in slums and the five to six million people living in near-slums without rapidly increasing the number and the proportion of council houses built? How are we going to deal with the 80,000 slums in Liverpool, the 60,000 in Manchester and the 40,000 in Birmingham without giving the local authorities the go-ahead and the financial incentive to do so? Will those who say that the increases should not be in this form go to London, to Leeds, to Cardiff, to Nottingham, to Leicester and to central Hull and tell the citizens there, many of whom have never known what it is like to live in a decent house, that they are sorry but owing to their political prejudices their party is going to have to make savage


cuts in their councils' programmes if they are returned to power?
Before I leave the subject of an increased local authority programme, I want to say an important word about the distribution of that programme between authorities. Nothing to my mind could be clearer than that authorities in the conurbations, the growth zone of the northern region and those building for overspill should be given an annual building programme which rises steadily as sites, staff and capacity become available. This means that authorities in the areas where the need for more council houses is relatively small, notably in the South, will have to accept far smaller programmes than they like. But, because we cannot disrupt programmes that are already in hand, it is going to take time to complete the redistribution of the housing programme. Some priority authorities who, to their credit, would like immediately to increase their programmes sharply may find that they will have to accept some rephasing over the next year or two.
My right hon. Friend has already announced massive increases in most of our conurbations and cities, and I say quite frankly to those who intend to speak in the debate that they must ask themselves how, other than by the local authorities, houses can be provided for people when the slums are cleared. Unless there is some magic formula by which private landlords building to let can solve our problems, which I have never heard of, it is only the local authorities which can deal with them. The magic formula has eluded five Conservative Ministers of Housing and nine Parliamentary Secretaries; and none of the academics who ever wrote on the subject in the 13 years of Conservative rule was able to produce a formula to say that the necessary house building could be done other than by the local authorities. We do not know of any other way in which the slums can be removed.
We cannot go on trying to solve the housing problem as the Conservatives did, by hunch, by guess and by God. The only way in which we can solve it is to make quite certain that the local authorities get the major responsibilty for

clearing the slums and overcrowding and that we give them a real programme.
If authorities, particularly those in the priority areas, are to achieve their programmes, there will have to be a big increase in industrialised building, because if we try to achieve 500,000 houses a year by 1970, it cannot be done without 100,000 extra men being put into house-building. Those men are not available. Therefore, we are determined that the houses will be built faster and, in many instances, cheaper. My right hon. Friend will insist on an industrialised building content in the local authorities' programmes, and he will insist on Parker-Morris standards. He is determined that by 1970 we shall have hit our target of half a million houses every year, and, as I say, the only way in which the problem can be tackled is by the local authorities.
I move the Second Reading of the Bill, confident in the knowledge that the incentive provided to local authorities is the one incentive asked for by the Borough Treasurer of Kingston-upon-Thames when I first visited him about a year ago. He said, "You ask for an increased housebuilding programme. I ask you, in turn, as a Government to give us increased financial incentive." We are doing just that today.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to ensure the maximum use of all possible agencies for the building of houses, does nothing to help the prospective home buyer or to redeem the Government's pledge of lower rates on mortgage interest; and fails to secure that additional subsidies are applied so as to help those people who need them most.
The House is indebted to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary first of all for a very clear and conscientious summary of the Bill, and secondly, which is always appreciated, for a very genuine and agreeable indication of the hon. Gentleman's own approach to the problems.
As regards the Bill itself, the best commentary of all was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. [Interruption.] I must try to be nice to the right hon. Gentleman when I can, and I say it on the assumption that he wrote the


White Paper on the Housing Programme. Paragraph 47 reads:
The whole question of housing finance also needs much deeper study than this Government has yet had time to give it.
That is perhaps a very odd prelude to the introduction into the House of a Bill which in four years' time, if present rates of interest continue, will be costing the taxpayer some £19 million a year. If it means anything, it means that the Government do not expect the Measure to operate for very long, and that suspicion is confirmed by the terms of Clause 12 of the Bill, with the powers which that gives to the Minister to revoke and reduce these subsidies.
It is rather interesting, in that connection, to recall that the 1961 Act contained—and here I anticipate what the right hon. Gentleman will say—a similar proposal, limited to action after 10 years. It is interesting, too, to recall what the then Opposition spokesman on Housing and Local Government said. The right hon. Gentleman is now Foreign Secretary, and I am sure that the House as a whole will want to send its best wishes to him in his recent distressing illness and wish him a rapid recovery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The right hon. Gentleman described this provision as
a most vicious principle which produces for local authorities … financial uncertainty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1961; Vol. 637, c. 987.]
That provision was stigmatised by the then Opposition spokesman, whereas the Parliamentary Secretary now comes forward and says that it will give certainty to local authorities in the finance of housing, and he made it the basis of the fine emotional peroration about a great surge forward in housing, and so on.
The main issues which on Second Reading seem to us to arise do so not so much in respect of what is in the Bill but in respect of what is not and, if I may, I wish to make one or two comments on them in the light of the reasoned Amendment which I have just had the privilege of moving.
However, before I come to that, I want to make one or two quick comments on the Bill and on what the Parliamentary Secretary said, though I think that the

House will agree that most of the points that he dealt with are Committee points.
I comment first of all on Clause 10, with its provision, among, other things for subsidies where the price of land required exceeds £50,000 per acre. It certainly looks from that as if the right hon. Gentleman has not very much confidence that the Land Commission of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources will reduce the price of building land.
Then there is the reduction in the extra subsidy paid in respect of the really high buildings, which I think is a mistake. If I may say so, the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong in saying that technical progress has reached the point at which there is little if any additional cost when one gets into the really higher buildings. I do not think that he will find that expert opinion is anything like unanimous, and it is a great pity in connection particularly with the problem of London, to which rightly and naturally he gave great emphasis in his speech, that the higher building which is certainly one of the methods of solving the problems of Inner London should be discriminated against in that way.

Mr. Mellish: I could have burdened the House with figures to prove that all high-rise building, where industrialised building methods are used—and this is almost certain to be applied in most of the high rise building in London—is much cheaper than it has been in the past. We shall give the figures of this at a later stage.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has been so advised, otherwise he would not have said that, but that advice is very far from unanimous, and my doubts are strengthened by the fact that in the course of referring to this matter the hon. Gentleman indicated some dislike of high building. Indeed, he said that his right hon. Friend wanted to keep a specially sharp eye on it, and it seemed to me—though I am in the judgment of the House on this—that when referring to this he indicated some distaste for building high, even in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I shall be interested to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman takes


the view that very high building should be encouraged at the rate it was encouraged at in the past, even outside the areas where we all agree it may still be necessary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I do not think so. I must not be led to digress very far, but the need for very high building seems to me to be confined almost exclusively to areas in the centres of great conurbations where there are a large number of people who, for good reason, need, and want, to live near their work. I think that outside these areas the need for it would be exceptional.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): Has the right hon. Gentleman calculated the effect of adding a considerable supplementary subsidy, such as a high rise subsidy, to the new basic subsidy, which is a percentage one? It is a percentage subsidy, making about one-third in certain cases. If one adds too much to this, one gets 80 to 90 per cent. of the total in subsidies. Therefore, we ought to reconsider the high rise subsidy, and the expensive site subsidy, linked with a basic subsidy. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that the two work together. Even the right hon. Gentleman, as an ex-Chief Secretary to the Treasury, might blanch at sanctioning a larger amount than we calculated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's point, and it plainly has some force. Indeed, the fact that this subsidy, unlike its predecessor, is attached to the actual cost of the house, is a point on which I shall have some criticisms to offer. The financial discrimination in favour of the high building which exists in the present subsidy is being abandoned, and being abandoned on what, if one takes the reasons given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, seem to be inadequate grounds.

Mr. Crossman: It is correct to say that in the earlier subsidy there was a discrimination in favour of high rise. There was an incentive to local authorities to build high because of the rate of subsidy they got when they built high. The particular discrimination in favour of building high has in fact been removed. I think that that is a fair statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that we are in agreement on the facts when comparing the two subsidies. Where we disagree is whether the application of that system in present circumstances, and in the present state of building progress, makes sense. We will probably argue this more fully during the later stages of the Bill, but I am bound to say that this is premature, and that I think it may well make the solution of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman directed a large part of his peroration—the subject of housing in such areas as Central London—more difficult, rather than less.
I come now to the main subsidy which, as I pointed out in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, is related to the cost of the building, and also is based on the rates of interest prevailing in the previous year. As was pointed out by the Economist a few days ago, it has a rather curious effect, because it offers greater inducements to local authorities to build at times when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised interest rates, presumably to curtail activity, and, conversely, offers less inducement to build at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a desire to inflate the economy, has reduced rates of interest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman studies the Bill, he will find that that is what it does. This is a very curious aspect of the matter. If the local authorities build at a time when rates of interest have been high in the preceding year—and this is governed by the preceding year—they will get the higher rate of subsidy for the succeeding 60 years. This is a very odd aspect of the subsidy.
The other aspect of it is that it is related to the actual cost of the house. This is a sensible provision in respect of the special subsidies. They take into account special costs, special circumstances, the neighbourhood, and so on, but for the main subsidy it has the patent disadvantage that it does not give very much of an incentive to economy in building. Thus, in a sense, it has an element of cost plus, which the House has often criticised, and it involves no inducement to build with reasonable economy as under a subsidy like the present one which is based on specific figures of £8 or £24 a year per house.
This ties up—and I think that this throws a little light on it—with the action


of the right hon. Gentleman as expressed in the now notorious Circular 50 of 1965. As the House knows, that removes from local authorities with direct works organisations the obligation to put one job out of three out to tender, and thereby removes one of the best methods of checking whether direct works organisations, some of which are notorious for their expense, are costing the ratepayers more than they need. This kind of subsidy on a cost-plus basis ties up with that approach, and for that reason is particularly unfortunate.
Where the taxpayer would be paying a substantial part of the cost by way of subsidy, there is all the more inducement for a Socialist-controlled local authority, operating a direct works organisation, to continue to give the work to that organisation, even though it is patently more expensive than putting it out to contract. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are severe criticisms of several direct works organisations at the moment. It is unfortunate that this feature of the subsidy should be operating at this particular moment, and it seems to be ideological in its origin.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman has introduced the subject of direct labour. At the moment direct labour is responsible for building only 9 per cent. of local authority houses. The remaining 91 per cent. are built by private enterprise. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that it is wrong to try to ensure that local authorities are encouraged where they have efficient direct works labour schemes? It should be remembered that my right hon. Friend has the final word on this, because he has to decide whether the tenders submitted are comparable to other tenders sent in for similar jobs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that it is absolutely wrong, because it means that direct works organisations can go on putting in proposals for work without it ever being possible to check them against competitive tenders. The hon. Gentleman must read his right hon. Friend's circular. It removes the obligation, which has existed for some time, that one job out of three must be put out to tender. That deprives the right hon. Gentleman, who of course has to approve the tenders, of the best possible

check on whether the direct works organisation's price is a reasonable one. Indeed, this is borne out by the fact that Circular 50 of 1965 contains a rather feeble appeal to local authorities to do their best to keep an eye on the costs of their direct works organisations. That passage was included because the right hon. Gentleman knew that the effect of the Circular would be to remove the real safeguard, and therefore it was necessary to put in an alternative.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for 10 to 15 years the Liverpool Corporation had an agreement with the Unit Construction Company for negotiated tenders? There was, therefore, no check whatever against any other building contractor. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this put the new direct works department in Liverpool into a very difficult position, because it had to go for the normal sort of tender when the Unit Construction Company never did, because of this negotiated agreement?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is all very interesting, but the fact that—according to the hon. Member—there has been inadequate provision to secure that costs are kept reasonable in Liverpool does not seem to be an argument for securing inadequate provision elsewhere.
There is a very important point connected with the timing of these proposals. All this admirably-phrased rhetoric about the development of local authority building reads a little oddly if we study Paragraph 16 of the Financial Memorandum which reads:
Since in general the new subsidies will be payable only in respect of housing in tenders approved by resolution of the recipient authority on or after 25th November 1965 the effect of the proposed increases will not become substantial until the financial year 1967–68.
That does not seem to be a very great incentive at the moment. The hon. Member was good enough to refer to the effort being made by the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. When he quoted the relevant figures he must have been advised that they reflect great credit on the council, but also that they are the result of years of preparation, planning and the acquisition of land.
I doubt whether the hon. Member is entitled to share the credit, which he seemed to wish to do. He says, "Look at the extra money that this council will get as a result of the subsidies", but in saying that he is basing his argument on the assumption that over the forward four-year period the general rate of interest will remain as it is at present. That is very interesting. It means that it is not the view of the Government that the phase through which we are passing is just the temporary emergency which they allege was bequeathed to them by their predecessors.
What the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is, "Under a Socialist Government you will have such continued inflation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day will have to maintain high rates of interest almost indefinitely". If the Parliamentary Secretary does not mean that, the figures that he quoted are quite meaningless.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman mentions that Kingston did a great deal of planning. It is extraordinary that they never did it in the 13 years of Tory rule, but that it suddenly came to light when we were in power. I said in my speech, and I repeat, that one of the great difficulties with planning is uncertainty about interest rates. What we have done in this Bill is to guarantee that the rate will not go above 4 per cent. as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How the hon. Gentleman can talk about a firm guarantee with Clause 12 in the Bill is a matter that we shall probe a good deal further. He knows quite well that this will provoke uncertainty, as his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said from this Dispatch Box in respect of a similar proposal not four years ago.

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman should remember that when we are introducing an interest rate subsidy the treasurers of cities are bound to ask questions. One very reasonable question will be: what happens to the subsidy supposing the interest rates go down two or three points? They clearly want some guarantee that if interest rates sink the situation will be reconsidered, and this contingency is covered by Clause 12.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So is a great deal else—the elimination of the subsidy, for instance. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that borough treasurers are as capable of reading the Measure as he is, and they will know that the particular use of the Clause to which he has referred is only one of a great many possible uses.
The reasoned Amendment is based on three propositions: first, that the Bill represents a failure to use all the agencies which can be used to help the construction of houses, and is confined to giving help in the local authority sphere; secondly, that it does nothing to help the prospective home buyer, despite the most specific pledges given by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, thirdly, that it provides additional rent subsidies while taking no step whatever to secure that they are applied to those who need them.
All those three propositions are plainly true. They seem to us to amount to a clear justification for telling the Minister that he should take this Bill away and bring in, instead, a Measure which will support a proper, balanced housing policy.

Mr. Mellish: What is that?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What it means, first of all, is keeping pledges. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of his own election manifesto, which says:
This policy of specially favourable rates will apply both to intending owner-occupiers and to local authorities building houses to let.
The Bill deals only with one category.

Mr. Mellish: That is a very good election address. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has enjoyed the picture of my son on it. We have been in power for only one year. We intend to stay in for five, and I promise the right hon. Gentleman that that pledge will be redeemed before we go out of office.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That seems a somewhat contingent promise, in the circumstances of the Government's majority. The fact remains that they are doing nothing to redeem that pledge now. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that this is the Labour Party election manifesto and not the document decorated with his son's portrait, which, I am sure, although no more convincing would be very much more attractive.
The Government made a clear pledge that this provision would apply to both categories. This has not been fulfilled. The House is familiar with this situation. The pledge has been given again and again by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Let me quote the Prime Minister's election address. He said:
100 per cent. mortgage, lower interest rates and cheaper legal charges will help those who wish to buy.
Nothing whatever is done in the Bill. Nothing is promised for this Session. This is an extremely serious charge against the Government. Would-be home owners are told, "No, the state of the economy is not good enough, and you must wait". There is something for local authority housing but there is nothing—for all the Government's lip service—for home owners.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Not yet.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has always refused to give a pledge that those who buy now will not be penalised, and that any Measure introduced in the future will be backdated to the beginning of the term of this Government. That casts a little light on the interjection "Not yet". The situation of "not yet" is becoming more urgent. There are hints, and more than hints, that the present rates of building society interest, which are already high, may be moving higher. There is the latest statement of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers—the report for November—which says:
The latest enquiry conducted by the Federation of Registered House-Builders among its members shows the position as regards private house building at the end of November, 1965. The 465 replies analysed show that private house purchase has fallen away sharply compared with three months ago.
But nothing is being done now, and nothing is to be done this Session, to redeem the pledge to those hundreds of thousands of young voters who voted Labour at the last election because they thought that the Labour Party would help them to get a house.
The argument is used that we must give priority to the local authorities because their housing was neglected under previous Governments. Yet it is a fact, derived from one of the right hon. Gentleman's Answers to Questions, that

the number of local authority houses doubled under Conservative Governments. We next have the argument that, although this may be so, the need, as the Milner Holland Report said, is for homes to let and therefore we must use the local authorities. Indeed the White Paper quotes the Milner Holland Report in favour of the plain and evident proposition that there is a great need of houses to let, but what the Milner Holland Report patently does not do is say that the provision of houses to let should be undertaken only by the local authorities.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Who else?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The private landlord. This is the sphere in which, as the right hon. Gentleman's Answer brings out, there has been a falling off in the provision of accommodation. It is the essence of the right hon. Gentleman's policy that for the future the local authorities should be the sole new providers of accommodation to let.

Mr. Crossman: Let me correct this. I have made it clear throughout that, in addition to local authorities, I regard housing associations as a most important element, to be given every possible encouragement. I said that, as far as I knew, when the Milner Holland Committee studied the situation in London it could not find one contractor who was actually building houses to let below the luxury level. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any houses to let at working-class levels of rent which were being built by private contractors when he left office?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about housing associations. I should be the more impressed by it if he had done what I asked him to do in the last housing debate—introduced legislation to loosen the legal restrictions which prevent them from playing a very much bigger part than they are able to play at present. The right hon. Gentleman by his intervention reminds me that he has done nothing in the Bill to do that. After all his praise of the housing associations, he might have done so.
He referred me to the Milner Holland Report, and I will refer him to that Report. It is of the essence of the Milner


Holland Report that the local authorities are not, and should not be, even with the housing associations, the sole providers of accommodation to let. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 225 of the Milner Holland Report, where the Committee undertakes a clear and comprehensive survey of the experience of other countries, and particularly comparable countries in Western Europe, in a passage which the right hon. Gentleman may well remember:
The governments which have been most successful in surmounting these stresses and maintaining order and justice within this sector of the housing market have been those which have accepted and incorporated private rented property among the instruments to be used in meeting housing needs.
If the right hon. Gentleman studies that Report he will see that it tells him how to do it. Of course the right hon. Gentleman was right in his intervention. The supply has fallen off.

Mr. Crossman: Dried up.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Dried up is an exaggeration; fallen off is a fact. The Milner Holland Report explained the reasons and put forward a proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has once again rejected.

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman rose——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman again in a moment. He will observe that I am giving way to him rather more freely than he gave way to me the other night.
The point is made throughout the Milner Holland Report, and, if the right hon. Gentleman looks, in particular on pages 38 and 39, that the fiscal system of this country works against the provision of accommodation from private sources to let. Figures are given in the Report which show that quite a modest provision for depreciation for those who provide accommodation to let, as is already provided under our tax system in respect of those who provide factories, would bridge the gap between present building costs and rents tolerable for the lower income groups to pay. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is all set out very clearly and very fully in the Milner Holland Report. But nothing has been done about it.
The right hon. Gentleman does not want to do this, because he regards it as a matter of policy that the private landlord is to be discouraged. There was a very powerful article in The Times the other day called "Housing's inflexible terms". This puts very well the argument which I want to put to the House. Faced with the need to provide accommodation generally and accommodation to let in particular, does it make sense to fly in the face of the experience of most European countries and not avail oneself of private capital and the energy that is provided by private enterprise? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite always complain that private capital goes into offices and bingo halls and all the rest of it and not into housing, but if the Minister reads the Milner Holland Report, which he is so fond of quoting, he will see the reasons for it.
Partly the reasons are fiscal treatment and, partly, let me say frankly to the right hon. Gentleman, the attack which he and his right hon. Friends always seem to make on those who provide that accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman is always talking of Rachmans and he is always trying to portray all landlords—despite the evidence of the Milner Holland Report—as Rachmans. It is no more fair to do that than it is to describe all trade union leaders as bullies because an extremely small minority of them go in for the intimidation of non-unionists. In both cases those charges are wholly unfair, but in this case the charges do more damage. If one makes it fiscally unattractive for people to go in for the provision of housing and if one insults and denounces them if they do go in for the provision of housing, it is not wholly surprising that they invest their money elsewhere.
I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this important aspect of policy. He is facing a very big decision, if he is proposing, as he has said in his numerous interventions, to abandon the use of the private sector in the provision of accommodation to let. There is a limit to what local authorities can do, with the best will in the world. They build more slowly than private enterprise. There is a limit to the speed with which they can proceed. With the best will in the world, there is a limit to their total capacity—


and I say that although I have great admiration for local authorities.
In his speech of the Labour Party conference at Blackpool, the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to remind us that in 1951 private building was limited to one house for four in the public sector. He did not remind the Conference, and he did not remind us afterwards, that this resulted in a total annual building output of 190,000 houses—and a declining output. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on only one of the four possible instruments for having houses built, he will not get the output of houses which he could get if he used all four.
In our policy document "Putting Britain Right Ahead", we say firmly that we propose to use all four—local authorities, of course; the owner-occupier, with the necessary financial help, which we spell out, because it will be necessary to get that going again after the check which the right hon. Gentleman has given it; the private landlord. with the fiscal adjustments to which I have already referred; and the housing associations, with the provision of greater freedom so that they may co-operate in a partnership which will enable them to make a much bigger contribution than they can make at present to the total of housing.
Such a policy, with its choice for the consumer and with the use of all four instruments for getting houses built, is plainly more effective than the right hon. Gentleman concentrating, just as the last Labour Government concentrated, with disastrous consequences for house building, on only one instrument, the local authority. That is why in the terms of our reasoned Amendment we criticise the right hon. Gentleman very severely for going forward only with this proposal for producing what I called a few moments ago a completely unbalanced housing programme.
Let me come to another aspect of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is to rely, as seems to be his intention, on local authorities as the sole providers, apart from the housing associations, of new accommodation to let, then it is all the more deplorable that he is not insisting that they should make proper use of the subsidies. If they are to be the only bodies housing people who want something to rent up to and short of

the luxury level, it is surely all the more important that the subsidies should be properly applied. It argues a singular, though perhaps justifiable cynicism about the effect of Labour Party economic policies that the right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, in this day and age, an ever larger proportion of people will require to have their rents subsidised because they cannot afford to pay the full rent.
As the Parliamentary Secretary reminded us, even in the areas of those authorities which operate rebate schemes, those with substantial incomes do not generally pay enough to scale up to the level which would make the housing account balance at that level of rent. Many authorities do not apply these schemes at all. The Parliamentary Secretary answered a Parliamentary Question on 16th November and told the House, as reported in column 44 of HANSARD, that 59 per cent. of local authorities do not operate rent rebate schemes.
It is an absolute fallacy that all council tenants are of modest means. I would ask the House to consider the statistical evidence which is available, thanks to the Ministry of Labour's Family Expenditure Survey Report for 1964, issued in 1965. This took a sample of local authority tenants and put them into different income groups. In the sample, 148 tenants proved to have incomes of less than £10 a week. I quote £10 a week, because this is the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted for the purpose of defining poverty in the Housing Subsidies Bill. There are 193 in the sample—[Interruption.]—these are families grouped by tenure of dwelling and household income, table (f), page 7, of the Family Expenditure Survey. I can see that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers will be getting it for him and I am glad that he should look at it.
As I said, 148 in the sample earn £10 a week. No one would object—or should object—to their receiving a subsidy. But there are 193 in the same sample with incomes of over £30 a week, of which 64 earn over £40 a week. One can contrast that with the people who have to contribute to the subsidy through taxation and, sometimes, through rates, the tenants of private landlords. The sample there was slightly smaller, but it showed that


196 tenants of private landlords earn under £10 a week and only 126 earn over £30 a week.
Even in the category of owner-occupiers—those who are now the full owners of their houses—a smaller sample altogether none the less showed that 114 people earn under £10 a week. Faced with those figures, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify providing additional local authority housing subsidies, without insisting that they are properly applied?
As I have said, 59 per cent. of local authorities have no rent rebate scheme at all. On the figures of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary——

Mr. Albert Evans: Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, South-West) rose——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot give way to the hon. Member at the moment: I am in the middle of an important argument.
It is fair to say that many council tenants with good earnings are embarrassed by the knowledge that their rents are subsidised by their fellow citizens and neighbours who may be, and often are, worse off than themselves. If it is the right hon. Gentleman's policy—as it appears to be—to use the local authorities as the sole instrument for providing accommodation to let, this entirely new situation places upon him the duty to make sure that those who obtain that accommodation and who have comfortable earnings or means are not subsidised by their worse-off fellow citizens.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred us to the fact that the White Paper, in paragraph 41, contains an admirable argument in favour of what I have just said. But it makes it clear that the Government will rest content with exhortation and that they, who are taxing the taxpayer to provide this money, will still leave entirely to the discretion of local authorities the decision whether or not to apply these subsidies indiscriminately. That is not an attitude which commends itself to the great majority of people, in whatever sort of accommodation they live. It is just plain unfair.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that those local authorities who—despite the exhortations to which they have been subjected for years, despite the

plain reason of the matter, whether for reasons of ideology or political cowardice—have not introduced rent rebate schemes will do so because of his pellucid prose in paragraph 41 of the housing programme White Paper?

Mr. Albert Evans: The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, if a local authority does not operate a rebate scheme, people with incomes over £10 a week do not pay an economic rent. It does not follow. I know of one council which charges an economic rent, which those who can afford it pay: but those who have an income below a certain level have a rebate, and their economic rent is reduced. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, because a family has an income of £30 a week, it is necessarily paying a subsidised rent: that also does not follow. Many council tenants pay economic rents. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to take that into account.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have followed my argument. Of course, there are local authorities—according to the Parliamentary Secretary, a proportion of 41 per cent—which apply these schemes, and in the areas of many, though not most, of those authorities, people with substantial earnings no doubt pay a reasonable and fair rent. But what the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise is that if authorities do not apply such schemes, the great majority of people in their areas pay a subsidised rent whatever their means may be. This is the distinction between the two types of scheme. I do not want to weary either the House or the hon. Gentleman by explaining it to him at great length. This is the issue. If the hon. Gentleman would only read his right hon. Friend's admirable prose in paragraph 41, in which he urges upon local authorities what I have been urging, he will see that there is no dispute between us about this on the facts.
The dispute between us is that the right hon. Gentleman, for one reason or another, is not prepared to apply the logic of his own argument and provide the subsidies where these conditions apply and not elsewhere. That is the difference between us. We share some of the sentiments which the Parliamentary Secretary so well expressed about the need for an


effective housing drive, but we want it to be effective. We do not believe that, if it is confined to local authorities, it will be effective. We call in aid the fact that, under the last Labour Government, restrictions of this sort resulted in small and falling housing programmes and that our reliance—expressed in our policy document and in our past policy—on the use of all four instruments of housing will provide a better choice and a fuller opportunity for those who want a house and, above all, more houses.
That is why we attack this Bill for its limitations and for its bias. It contains help for only one instrument, where it ought to contain help for four. It relies only on the local authorities, and, even in that respect, it does not secure that the subsidies go where they are needed. Fairness and impartiality are lacking in the Bill. In the language of the racecourse, it is by political prejudice out of political calculation: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take it away and think again.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: While I will not comment on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), he will agree that while the two sides of the House are in disagreement on certain aspects of the Bill, it cannot be denied that 1 million homes in Britain are classified as slums and that another 2 million are classified as near-slums.
The people who occupy these homes will be able to go into alternative accommodation only if it is rented accommodation. I use the word "home" because I wish to embrace the concept of the family. Since the many thousands of people who are at present living in slum or near-slum conditions will not be able to buy their own homes, I welcome the Bill because it seeks to tackle the problem at its source.
When a schoolmaster, I taught that the essential requirements of a human being were food, clothing and housing. To a large extent food and clothing are now reasonably well provided, but nobody in his right mind could pretend that the standard of housing in Britain is good enough. It appalls me to think that despite the great technical skill at our dis-

posal, so many of our people have been waiting for so long for a place of their own. I therefore welcome a Measure which is designed to tackle the real problem at its source, which is precisely what the Bill will do.
That a shortage of housing exists no one will deny, but the greatest shortage lies in the realm of rented accommodation. I was delighted when the Minister highlighted this in his remarks and said that he intends to tackle the problem at the point of greatest need. It has been said that before long a married couple will have to ask their doctor if they can have a child. Nowadays it seems that they must ask their landlord that question first. These are the people in greatest need; yet they are the people who are most denied a chance of a home of their own.
While I would like to pursue at length the question of providing more rented accommodation, I appreciate that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I will be brief. The idea seems to have got abroad in recent years that we must queue for our houses. It seems to be accepted nowadays that there should be and for ever will be a shortage of housing. We seem to take it for granted that the problem will never be solved.
I may be accused of recklessness and extravagance, but I say frankly that I will be a happier man when the time arrives when homes will be waiting for people to occupy them rather than the reverse position, which has obtained for so long. Of all the Measures brought forward in recent years, this Bill will go further towards encouraging local authorities to provide accommodation for those in greatest need. Perhaps the Opposition does not like the Bill because it reveals the shortcomings of former Conservative Administrations. After their 13 glorious years we still have 3 million substandard houses. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot say that a problem does not exist.
I welcome the intention to apply the recommendations of the Parker Morris Report on standards. For too long we have tended to build today the slums of tomorrow. The idea of building better quality houses in the public sector appeals to me for two major reasons: first, it will enable families to live in reasonable, and


not in the present overcrowded, conditions; and, secondly—and I say this from perhaps a personal point of view—it will enable the children in a family to do their studies in peace and quiet.
A house and a home is normally a hurly-burly, warm type of edifice. The family lives in harmony and peace, but sometimes members of the family need to take themselves away somewhere quiet to do their work—studies or whatever it might be. Many hon. Members opposite probably do not appreciate how difficult it is, in a working-class home, for one of the children to pursue his or her studies because of the lack of accommodation. I want the family to be together, but also to have the ability to be dispersed from time to time so that, when peace and quiet is needed, it can be had. I therefore welcome the Minister's initiative in asking local authorities to apply the standards recommended by the Parker Morris Committee.
The White Paper "The Housing Programme 1965 to 1970" states that the main purpose of the Government is
… to provide a stable financial basis for housing programmes by eliminating uncertainty about interest rates".
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames overlooked that part of the White Paper. If that aim is achieved it will stimulate local authorities into planning ahead and using all the facilities they have for building houses. It will encourage, and give security to, the building industry and construction workers to use their full resources to build more houses. It will bring joy and comfort to the homeless because it will tackle the housing shortage at its point of greatest need.
I end by stating again, at the risk of being accused of recklessness and extravagance, that houses should be waiting for people to occupy rather than for people to have to queue for ages for a place of their own.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I often wonder why hon. Members opposite think that hon. Members on this side of the House have no knowledge at all of working-class homes. I yield to no one in my knowledge of those homes. I have

a large proportion of them in my constituency, and as I have been councillor, alderman and then Member of Parliament for Ilford for more than 30 years I claim some knowledge of what goes on in those homes. I sometimes think that it is hon. Members opposite who themselves have little knowledge of what goes on in a working-class home.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the Government's idea of imposing a differential rent scheme generally. That is very good, indeed. It has taken a long time for the Labour Party to catch up with policies that have been pursued by Conservative councils for many years. We have long had a differential rent scheme in Ilford, and we have not had a burden put on the ratepayers. Our only housing subsidy is for old-age pensioners. That is how a differential rent scheme should operate. The man with the higher income should pay a proper rent for his accommodation. There is no social justice in any other approach.
The Minister has said that he discussed withdrawing some of the older subsidies, but said that, if that were done, local authorities would lose faith in Governments. I see much force in that argument, but the Minister might give some consideration to pre-war subsidies, which present a very different problem from subsidies granted post-war. Before the war, houses were built at very low cost—a mere pittance compared with the cost of a similar house today—yet subsidies are still being given in respect of those houses, though the incomes of the tenants are out of all proportion to their earnings before the war. The older house subsidy presents quite a different problem from that presented by the postwar subsidy.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, "We cannot withdraw subsidies because that would cause a loss of faith", and still retain Clause 12. I have never seen such a Clause in such a Bill. The Minister speaks of faith and trust: "As long as we are in power, the local authorities will have a guarantee that interest rates will not be above 4 per cent." But Clause 12 says the very opposite. It gives the Minister the right to withdraw the subsidy altogether at any time. How does the right hon. Gentleman square the two?
The extra cost of the subsidy will be borne by the taxpayer—but who is the taxpayer? Some of the taxpayers, obviously, are council house tenants, who will be paying something towards their own accommodation, but the great bulk of taxpayers are not council tenants. They are people in private rented accommodation, or young people, married people, elderly people, who are either buying or have bought their own homes without any help from any Government over the years. They will now have to find the additional subsidy and, in many cases, find it out of small incomes in order to subsidise council tenants who are earning much more than they are.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Member says that these people get no contribution whatever, but who gets the greater subsidy—the owner-occupier buying a house at £3,000 and getting Income Tax relief in that respect, or the council tenant of a house equivalent to the £3,000 house, and getting a subsidy?

Mr. Cooper: If the hon. Member wants to argue it like that, he can, but the two cases are entirely different. The council tenant receives a subsidy from the Government—sometimes as much, as in this Bill, as £45 or £50 a house. But the man buying his own house is not getting Income Tax relief to anything like that extent—[HON. MEMBERS: "£70."] Of course, some of them will get £70 in relief. Some will get more—those buying big houses for about £15,000—but they are the minority, not the generality.
As I said yesterday, I have in my constituency people above the age of 65, who have bought their own homes and educated their own children, who are now living on a small pension, and who will have to find extra money out of that pension to subsidise people in council housing who, in many cases, are earning £30, £40, £50, or £60 a week. That is both amoral and socially unjust, and cannot be justified by the Minister in any way at all.
Local authorities have power to borrow the money they need for house construction over a period of 60 years——

Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Gentleman talks about one section of the community subsidising the other, but 90 per cent. of the people

are subsidising industrialists, farmers, fishing fleets, the aircraft industry, and the lot.

Mr. Cooper: If we were to go into that aspect I could easily put the argument that industry provides more than half the country's taxation.
One cause of our present difficulties is the long period of borrowing by local authorities. I have always thought that 60 years was too long. I think that 40 years is about right or, if it is necessary to have something in between, 50 years. The total amount of interest paid over 60 years is quite astronomical. Another factor is that quite often before that period has expired the houses have been pulled down, new development has taken place, and there are new properties on the site. That has happened since the war in many areas, and I am sure that many hon. Members will know that it has happened in their constituencies as well.
If local authorities are to borrow for 60 years, the further subsidy we are now discussing is not necessary. In fact, in commending this Bill, the Minister himself made out no case for saying that unless this subsidy was provided, house-building would not continue at the level he wants. There is no evidence to support such a view. One reason why local authority building has not proceeded over the years at the same speed as the Minister would perhaps like now is that since the end of the war so many priorities have been placed upon the building industry for hospitals, schools, and the like, that it has been impossible to get all that was wanted. Even under the present Minister, local authorities are still held up in getting approval for starts for new council schemes. Taking the country as a whole, if the local authorities knew that they had to build these extra houses they would build them without the necessity for extra subsidies.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: In the 13 years when the Tories were in power why did the local authorities get a diminishing number?

Mr. Cooper: For the simple reason that in the same period we were building more and more houses for owner occupation. In the 13 years that everybody talks about we built 4¼ million new houses. As my right hon. Friend


the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, during our period of office we doubled the number of council houses built as compared with the six years of Socialist government from 1945 to 1951. Let us not go on harking back over the years. The Conservative Government's housing record was magnificent, and hon. Members know it. What we should be seeking to do now is to give local authorities the go-ahead to build the houses they want for their own council and working class tenants. We should be subsidising—nobody would argue against this—houses or flatlets for old age pensioners. We should be subsidising, as we are doing in some measure in this Bill, special and difficult sites and also very high buildings. There is no case at present, in view of the high incomes of many council tenants, for a subsidy for general need.
The money proposed to be spent under the Bill would be better spent on the hospital service, which has taken an awful knock under this Government. We must face the fact that the Bill is another step on the road to Socialism. It is typical of the cloth cap, soup kitchen mentality of the Labour Party. Every man his own council tenant. It is a mistake to deny the ordinary man in the street the right to buy his own house. I know that the Minister will assert that we are not denying him that right, but every step the Minister is taking makes it more difficult for the man to buy his own house. There are the high interest rates. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rating relief."] Let us not come on to that hoary chestnut. We could have a wonderful time with that.
The building industry is now at a certain level, so more council houses are to be built. The result will be that fewer houses will be built for owner occupation. My right hon. Friend read an extract from a recent survey. [Interruption.] If the Minister does not know this, he never will. There is at this moment a big falling off in the number of houses being built for owner occupation. I suggest that the Minister gets out of his Ministry and goes around talking to some of the builders. He will then find out the facts of life.
If it is right to subsidise council tenants under the Bill, why is it not right to subsidise the would-be house purchaser?

Or have we ditched "Mr. Three Per Cent."? [Interruption.] If it is still Government policy, as was said during the General Election campaign, one Clause in this Bill could have dealt with the matter. It would have needed only one Clause, because exactly the same provisions as apply to home ownership apply to council building. For all their fine words, the Government have no desire to assist house ownership. We must all live in little ticky-tacky boxes and finally all get educated in a nice big comprehensive school and all come out like little lovely plastic models.

Mr. Mellish: Provided we do not come out like the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cooper: I have not done so badly over the years. This afternoon we have heard mention of Milner Holland. What the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should understand is that Milner Holland was a grave indictment of Labour policy over 25 years. [Laughter.] For the whole of that period the housing authority for London was the London County Council, which was fully under the control of the Labour Party. Even today, it is still not a good housing authority.

Mr. Mellish: In defence of that body, which. is not here to speak for itself, it should be stated that in one paragraph Milner Holland paid tribute to the London County Council, said that it had done a magnificent job, and said that it was the one gleaming light in London which was to the credit of housing.

Mr. Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that——

Mr. Mellish: I did not say it. Milner Holland did.

Mr. Cooper: How can the hon. Gentleman square holding that up as an example with asserting that Milner Holland is an indictment of housing policy?

Mr. Mellish: This is very important. In fairness, the Milner Holland Committee was set up by a Tory Minister to investigate the problems arising from the Conservative Rent Act, 1957. The Milner Holland Committee's Report showed clearly that the 1957 Rent Act had had the completely opposite effect to that which the Government of the day had


intended it to have. It had, in fact, created less private rented property. It had created the miseries which the hon. Gentleman knows as a Londoner had existed for a long time and which the local authorities had been trying to do a fair job to relieve.

Mr. Cooper: I am saying that the Labour Party was in control of the London County Council throughout all those years. It was the housing authority. It should not have needed a report by Milner Holland or anybody else to tell that authority how bad the housing was in the area it administers. That authority should have been getting on with the job. It failed to do so.
Many of the problems that local authorities are facing in housing today arise because since the war differential rent schemes have not been made mandatory. The Minister should now, as he was invited to do by my right hon. Friend, ensure that local authorities receive these new subsidies only where they have a differential rent scheme of a type which the Minister can approve. The Bill does not apply to Scotland. It is wrong that in places like Scotland rents should be so ridiculously low, thus thrusting huge burdens on the rest of the ratepayers. This is equally true in many English cities and towns. Differential rent schemes must be made mandatory. If we do not like the expression "means test", we shall just have to stomach it. People must disclose their incomes. People receiving very high incomes should be able to pay, and indeed should be forced to pay, rents applicable to their incomes. If we get our housing costs down, as I am sure we would do in this way, we should not find the necessity for the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I tell the House of the Lancashire lad who came back from the Army on leave? He sat one Sunday evening on the back step of his slum house in Oldham, talking to his father. "Dad", he said, "we have been round the world, not living in slums like this but in proper houses with gleaming white bathrooms, shining tiles, with everything clean, hygienic and beautiful. Look at this dump—the rats, the bugs, the lice and the filth—it is terrible. And look at that place"—pointing to the rickety outside lavatory—"it's

a disgrace". He grew so angry that he pulled a Mills bomb out of his pouch and tossed it on the outhouse, which went up in smoke. They sat there for another five minutes, and then the father turned to his son and said, "Son, tha shudna dun that; thi Ma were in there". [Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to the Bill.

Mr. Allaun: I am not suggesting that we should try to solve the housing problem by throwing Mills bombs about, but I do say that the housing problem should be tackled as a military emergency. I am not exactly an uncritical back-bench Member of the Government side of the House, but I put on record my warm congratulation to the Minister and his two lieutenants for this Bill. I have had differences with them in the past, and I have no doubt that I shall have differences with them in the future, but, in my view, this Bill is a real step forward. It is something which many of us have been asking for, and pressing the previous Government for, since 1956 when interest rates went up with a bang. Taken in conjunction with the other important housing reforms recently introduced, it shows that the Labour Government's housing plans are now beginning to roll.
In a nutshell, the Minister has given a great boost, a powerful shot in the arm, to the housing drive. The burden of interest, however, remains so onerous that still further financial aid will be needed if we are to reach 500,000 houses a year. The nightmare of interest charges still remains, so, like Oliver Twist, I am asking for more.
Although this Bill will be a tremendous boon to the badly hit local authorities, it will cost the Government in a full year only £8 million. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may tell me that, in the second year, if there is no reduction in general interest charges, it will cost the Government £16 million a year and so on. That is perfectly true——

Mr. Mellish: On top of what they are already paying.

Mr. Allaun: On top of what they are already paying—but, naturally, everyone hopes that the Bank Rate of 6 per cent. and the current market rate of 6¾ per


cent. for this type of housing will come down. Every Thursday, I see the announcement on the ticker tape that the Bank Rate remains at 6 per cent., but there is always a hope, and, indeed, some suggestion, that it may come down. If it does come down, the cost to the Government of the subsidies in this Bill will be little or even nil. My main plea, therefore, is that, if this happens, as we hope it will, the Government will maintain the size of their proposed subsidy and give council housing building really cheap loans.
I remind hon. Members opposite that this will be essential if councils are to extend their programmes sufficiently and not suffer both a heavy financial loss and unpopularity through constantly rising rents with each additional house they build. It is paradoxical that, as things are at present, the more houses councils build the less popular they become because they have to push up the rents for those and the previous houses. I am not asking for the moon. Under the Labour Government of 1945–51, the interest rate in respect of council houses varied between 2½ per cent. and 3⅛ per cent.; it never exceeded 3⅛ per cent.
Sums of £8 million or £16 million are small in terms of Government expenditure. If I am asked where the extra money should come from, my answer is, by cutting our colossal arms expenditure. I believe that the hundreds of millions wasted each year in that way would be better spent in providing houses. Thinking of the £60 million cost of an aircraft carrier, the £500 million a year going east of Suez, and the £190 million a year wasted in Germany, I say that we can well afford these sums of £8 million and £16 million a year to expand our housing programme.
Here is an illustration to show how intolerable the interest burden is. Take the example of a two-bedroom council flat in the provinces costing £3,677 to build, and allowing for £700 for land costs. The situation is much worse in London, where the average cost of the land for a single council flat today—not per block but per individual flat—before a single brick is laid is £1,600. Seeing my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

Land and Natural Resources present, I express the hope that the Land Commission will look after that particular evil.
By the time my council, or the council in any hon. Member's constituency, has paid interest at 6¾ per cent. for 60 years on that two-bedroom flat costing £3,677 to build, the total cost works out at £15,193. The difference between those two figures is entirely accounted for by interest. After allowing for the existing subsidy of £24 a year, the economic rent works out at £4 18s. 0d. a week, which, with rates, comes up to £5 10s. or £6 a week.
Hon. Members opposite may think that this is not an unduly high rent, but for millions of families it is just out of this world. There are thousands of men in my constituency who earn £14 a week, less National Insurance, to keep a family on. How can they possibly afford rents of that sort? As I say, it is just out of this world.
In London, as I have said, the situation is worse. A three-bedroom house in some boroughs costs, in round figures, £4,500 to build, including land costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, will confirm that. One borough has a deficit each year on its housing account, after the existing subsidy, of £1·5 million. This is worse than Manchester which has £600,000, Liverpool which has £1¼ million, or Salford which had £155,000 deficit on its housing account. This particular London borough's total deficit is £1·5 million this year and next year it will go up to an additional £1·6 million.

Mr. Cooper: Have any of the local authorities which the hon. Gentleman is mentioning differential rent schemes?

Mr. Allaun: The one I am mentioning has a rebate scheme. The rents would be so high, if the full interest burden were charged, that the people who need the houses most would be unable to afford them. Thus, in addition to the Government subsidy, this council pays a subsidy out of its rates to the extent of £200 per annum per house. That is £4 a week per house out of the rates, or 1s. 8d. in the £, which does not help in its struggle to keep the rates down.
I agree that this council gets 8d. from the London Equalisation Fund from other


London authorities which are better placed. I agree that under this Bill, thank goodness, the £200 a year subsidy that the council must pay will be reduced to £125. The council is naturally deeply grateful for that relief. But it will still have to give a subsidy to the extent of £2 10s. a week for the next 60 years on every flat that it builds. All this adds up to the fact that the council will pay a total of £12,000 per flat in 60 years as a subsidy, quite apart from what is given by the Government as a subsidy. That is why I plead for still more help.
What most councils are doing is to spread the cost of the new flats over the old flats. So, year after year, council tenants who may have been in their houses 20 years are finding their rents going up. This is highly unpopular and, in my view, it largely explains why the council house totals for the United Kingdom, including Scotland, went down by half from 235,000 in 1954 to 120,000 in 1961, remaining at that figure until the election year, 1964.
The reduction in building did not occur because people did not need council houses. They were desperate for them. Do hon. Members opposite know that, in my constituency, the time spent on the waiting list is 19 years—unless one happens to live in that part of the city condemned for slum clearance? Yet, if the truth were told, half the city is really a slum clearance area. I know that some people do not like my talking like that, but it is no use calling a slum a rose garden, for that way it would never be cleaned up.
Many councils went ahead with council house building despite the political unpopularity which sometimes cost them dear. They built more houses because they regarded it as criminal if they did not. If the new target of 250,000 council houses and 250,000 private built houses is to be reached, these disincentives have to be removed and these new subsidies are a big step in that direction. But I repeat that they are still insufficient.
The 6¾ per cent. market rate is to be reduced to 4 per cent. Against this, however, there is the removal of the existing £24 a year subsidy which, on a £3,000 house, works out at about seven-eighths of 1 per cent. so that the net saving is not 2¾ per cent. but 1⅞ per cent. On

the £3,000 flat, the interest burden will go down, I calculate, from £175 to £132 per annum, a saving of £43 a year or 16s. 6d. a week in its rent. I appreciate that very much. On the £3,677 flat mentioned earlier, the interest reduction is greater. It will fall from £210 to £158, a saving of about £1 a week.
There are other good features of the Bill. For instance, it will be left to each local authority to decide for itself whether it is to charge differential rents, give rent rebates or, as many do, leave well alone. Secondly, there are special extra subsidies for high flats, for precautions against subsidence, for expensive sites and for building in special materials. The new 4 per cent. rate will apply to houses for which tenders are accepted from 25th November onwards even though it may be several months before this legislation goes through.
The beneficial impact, however, will perhaps be less than expected because the new rate will not be paid until the houses are completed, which will he at least two years hence. There will be no appreciable effect until then. Also, the cost of new houses will naturally be pooled with the cost of old houses built under the previous régime, when interest rates were very high from 1956 onwards. Once again the impact will be less than expected.
Many local authorities are concerned that additional subsidies will not be given for each floor above six storeys. I am sure that many authorities, like mine, are building up to 20 storeys.

Mr. Mellish: They still will.

Mr. Allaun: At present there is a subsidy of £1 l5s. per annum per flat per additional storey above six storeys. This is now to go and, of course, it means that some authorities, if the general market interest rate falls, will actually get less subsidy than now. I do not know whether that sounds Irish but it is a fact.

Mr. Mellish: This is very important. I would not like it to go out from this House that somehow we are providing a disincentive to build high, particularly in the conurbations, where we must build high in order to achieve the housing target. I assure my hon. Friend that this


aspect has been thought out very carefully. We are convinced that, with our new basic subsidy, the subsidy up to six storeys, and bearing in mind that the cost of building each storey above six is nothing like what it was, there will be no disincentive to any local authority building as high as it can in order to cope with its housing problem.

Mr. Allaun: I welcome that assurance. I am sure that it will bring great relief to certain local authorities which have contacted me on this point.
Clause 5 gives the Minister power to pay an additional subsidy up to £30 for special needs, but at this stage none of us knows what tests are to be applied to decide which local authorities will qualify and how much they will get. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give this permission widely and to make full use of the Clause to grant up to the maximum of £30.
Finally, clearing sites is a major expense for many local authorities. For instance, in many old towns, such as Salford, Oldham and Liverpool, the destruction of existing slum property is one of the major and most costly factors to be contended with before building new houses or flats. Strangely enough, this is not allowed for in the expensive site additional subsidy. I am not quite sure why. It is not good enough to say that it is allowed for in the general basic increase because, if general interest rates go down, it might mean less subsidy for councils than they are getting. Can the Minister tell me, perhaps at some future date, whether, in dealing with site additional subsidy, compensation charges will be included?
There have been cries from the other side of the House of "pampering the council house tenant". It ill behoves such people to make such a cry, because owner-occupiers are benefiting on a £3,000 house if they are paying the standard rate of Income Tax, to the extent of £70 a year in Income Tax relief.
I plead with both sides of the House, not to drive a wedge between council house tenant and the owner-occupier. They are both the victims of the same evil, high interest rates. This is being used as a political weapon by our opponents to try to make the electorate think that the Labour Party does not

want owner-occupiers to have cheaper mortgages. That is clearly untrue, and during the next year the Government will announce their proposals. My own view is that the fairest way to deal with this would be to reduce drastically the interest rates for those not paying Income Tax at the standard rate.
It may interest hon. Members to know that in West Germany, which has made spectacular advances in housing, subsidies are far bigger than anything we give. It must be remembered by British Conservative Members of Parliament that this is under the Conservative Government in Germany. In Western Germany one pays, despite a very high general mortgage interest rate, 1 per cent, or ½ per cent. or no per cent. at all on half the cost of the house. I can assure hon. Members that I am not imagining this. I checked it very carefully with the West German Embassy and these are the facts.

Sir Eric Errington: The subsidies in Germany are on a personal basis and not a household basis.

Mr. Allaun: That is true. They are given to those with an income of £18 10s. per week plus £4 10s. for every dependant. That means that a family of four earning under £30 a week receives this subsidy. I hope that Conservative Members of Parliament will pipe down on this, because I think that most of us are getting bored. This explains how the West Germans have been able to build 500,000 houses a year and how they are now going to build 600,000 houses a year. This is a country with a population almost identical to ours. It is no miracle. The explanation is simply that it devotes 1½ times the proportion of the gross national product to housing. I am overjoyed that we have now fixed the target of 500,000 houses a year and that it will be done.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who opened for the Opposition, complained that the Labour Government were not relying on private landlords to build houses to rent. Of course they are not. Private landlords have not built houses to rent since 1914. They will not do it, and the building of such houses will depend on local authorities or, alternatively on owner-occupiers. I conclude with a quotation from a letter I received this morning from the chairman


of the Association of Municipal Corporation's Housing Committee, Alderman K. C. Cohen, whom many hon. Members will know. He writes:
I am appalled at the conditions in such places as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Glasgow, Sheffield, etc. If I had my way I would ask for emergency powers to centre our efforts on these areas.
What concerns me more than anything is how the Minister is going to ensure that the authorities with the greatest slum problems get the necessary encouragement to quadruple their present building of homes so the slums can be cleared in the comparatively near future.
To that I say Amen. This Housing Subsidies Bill is a splendid advance. It is something for which tenants, councillors and labour M.P.s have been pleading for nine years. I should like the Minister to go ahead and do even more.

6.28 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I cannot of course, accept what the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has said about private enterprise building. But if it were true that private enterprise has done nothing—which I do not admit—the blame must lie entirely on the other side of the House because they have blown up Rachman and have painted a picture of the bad private property owner which is wrong in most cases. The hon. Member for Salford, East is one of the people whom one can justifiably blame for doing that over a long period. To my astonishment I find that I am in agreement with him over the principle he raised about the taxation position of owner-occupiers. It is a nonsense that owner-occupiers who have no Income Tax from which their payments can be deducted, should have to pay the full amount while, on the other hand, those who have a reasonable income can deduct their payments from Income Tax. But this is one of the things which ought to have been dealt with in this Bill.
I am not satisfied that this Bill takes a balanced view of the housing situation. Everyone will accept that there is both now and will be in the future a rising standard of expectation. The hon. Member for Salford, East has said that a council fiat costs £3,667 to build, of which £700 is for land. I am utterly amazed that any local authority needs to pay as much money to build flats. As a private landlord I have built a series of flats which have cost substantially less. Perhaps the

hon. Gentleman could tell me the name of the authority?

Mr. Frank Allaun: Yes. It is the Salford authority. The explanation for the high cost of flats which, I agree, disturbs many of us, is that if we build high, we have to dig deep; the foundations must be deep. There must be lifts. What is more, there must be a caretaker to look after the flats. This is part of the expense of flats.

Sir E. Errington: If I got a quotation for that figure, I would certainly want a second and third quotation against which to check it.
The Bill helps local authorities, but I am very unhappy about the way in which some of the money will be spent. It is all very well to say that there is more money and that it will be dealt with faithfully. But, as far as I can see, there will be no check on the way in which funds are used under the Bill. Presumably it will increase very much the number of people occupying council houses. Bearing in mind what I said about the standard of expectation, will not this escalation in price continue until such time that it may be essential to increase the subsidy even more? This matter should be examined very carefully.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary talked about "industrialised building". We have had the benefit of industrialised building in my constituency. For large buildings like barracks it is extremely good and it is reasonably cheap provided that the central place in which the components are made is near and they can be taken without difficulty from one part of the area which is being developed to another. However, I do not think that industrialised building is likely materially to improve the ordinary dwelling-house situation.
People talk about luxury rents. I do not know what a luxury rent is. It means different things according to the way in which the expression is used. The White Paper which started the idea of the housing associations was supposed to deal with rents of between £6 and £8. I do not know whether one would call rents between those figures luxury rents. The idea of the housing associations was not meant for the ordinary working man.
There appears to be a feeling in the Government's mind against owner-occupiers. I do not know why this should be so, because the Minister, at Stevenage, spoke very favourably of the owner-occupier. I wonder why it was not thought possible to consider ways to avoid this very large sum being taken out of our depleted finances? Why could not use be made of the funds which are flowing back from the advances made in July, 1961, for the purchase of pre-1919 houses? The House will recollect that £98 million out of £100 million made available by the Government was used by the building societies to enable people to buy the older houses. That money is coming in again. Is it not possible for help to be given by means of the use of this money again?
Cannot something be done to ease the position concerning deposits? A man and his wife came to see me at my constituency. He had £25 a week. He was willing to buy a house if he could get one, but he had not enough money to cover the deposit and the legal fees. He was of good type, and was prepared to take on the responsibility of a house, but, as you might imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of my constituency, he had just come out of the Army and had been unable to save the necessary amount for these charges. Cannot something be done to prevent the difference, to which the hon. Member for Salford, East referred, and which might be a very important difference, between the council house occupier and the owner-occupier?
Another thing which would attract owner-occupiers would be if the Minister were prepared to make allowance for the potential of people who are in certain classes of job. He could, perhaps, make provision so that the mortgage repayment was less if a person in a short time was due to get promotion. One way in which this could be done is what is called the "balloon" way. For a time, 50 per cent. of the mortgage is paid in the ordinary way and the remaining 50 per cent. is repaid after the house has been sold. I do not know whether this possibility has been considered. Another possibility is the American system of Government guarantee. This would have to be worked out in consultation with the insurance companies.
I wish to say a few words about the possibility of the sale of council houses

with a view to increasing the number of owner-occupiers and ensuring that there is not a very large block of council houses, then a block of owner-occupied houses, and so on. There is the danger, which is referred to in an article in The Times of 11 th December, that
children of council house tenants, growing up in the enclave atmosphere of council house estates, and used to expecting extremely low accommodation costs, will inevitably create an additional demand for council houses. No solution to that problem can be found in increasing council house rents to an economic level. The only level of rents of any relevance to the problem is the level of free market rents which in addition to being politically impossible would also be inequitable—owner-occupiers who purchased houses 20 years ago are not paying free market prices today for their accommodation …
Therefore, in effect, the price should be the "historic" cost, taking account of the fact that the house was built some years ago. The article adds that the way in which it was worked out was that in 1964 some 34 per cent. of the households in council houses had more than £25 a week and 22 per cent. of them had more than £30 a week. The proposition of council tenants becoming owner-occupiers seems not to be impossible but even desirable. Perhaps I have not put it as clearly as I might have done, but it would certainly be unfortunate if we had two nations, one of the council house occupiers and the other of owner-occupiers, even more in the future than the present.
I do not propose to go further into the question of building by private enterprise to let, though there is much to be said, but I will conclude with a word about the situation of the ex-Service man. I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, and in his Answer he said that he had reason to believe that something was being done by most local authorities about ex-Service men. This is a very difficult problem, as it must be, particularly in a town in which many people leave the Service. As I indicated before, there was the difficulty of a man who came to see me and who had tried to obtain a council house but had found that there was none available. Can the Minister give a clear indication that he appreciates the importance of this problem? I am not sure whether he has power in the Bill to deal with this matter, but would he consider, in view of the number of people coming out of


the Services, whether any special help could be given to them to meet their housing needs?

Mr. Crossman: I have taken a great deal of interest in this point, as has my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who opened the debate. I do not think that we have power directly to help ex-Service men in this way. We have issued a circular to local authorities impressing the need on them, and I have reasoned with housing managers on the subject. I must admit that I was disappointed by the response of some local authorities. It is a question of education. Unless I am prepared to order authorities how to allocate their houses, I do not think that I can intervene except by trying to persuade them to help ex-Service men and by hoping that all hon. Members in their constituencies will try to see that local authorities recognise their obligation to give special consideration to ex-Service men, especially in respect of the one year residential qualification, which it is impossible for Service men to fulfil.

Sir E. Errington: The difficulty is that many soldiers have no fixed place of residence. They have lived all over the place. When they leave the Service they have nowhere to go. That puts a special responsibility on the town at which they are discharged. Would the Minister seriously consider whether he could again forcefully indicate this obligation to local authorities? Would he consider whether anything could be done? It would be very helpful.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I find it impossible to discuss the substantial merits of the Bill without first, perhaps pedantically, defining what I believe is the purpose of subsidies and what I believe subsidies should do. I have no doubt that subsidies have a treble rôle in housing. First, they have the task of ensuring that houses are provided in the right quantity. Secondly, they have the task of providing those houses at a price that will enable the people who need them most to afford them. Thirdly, they have the duty of inducing local authorities and other housing agencies to build houses of the right sort and the right size.
I will try, briefly, to consider whether the proposals in the Bill fulfil those three requirements and produce those three ends. I have no doubt at all that the primary aim of Government subsidies—the production of larger quantities of houses, of a desperately needed increase in numbers—is likely to be met. My hon. Friends will rejoice in that doubly, not only because production is likely to increase but also because the disastrous trend of the last 15 years, in which subsidies have been falling from year to year, has at last been turned back.
In the White Paper the Minister is more than generous in his analysis of the subsidy pattern since 1951. It is difficult in an analysis of the situation to make any direct comparison between one year and another, because there have been so many changes. Subsidies have been divided between general need and slum clearance. Subsidies have been divided between areas of high cost and areas of low cost. But what we can say is that until 25th November of this year, most local authorities expected annually for every house that they built rather less Government subsidy than they expected annually for every house that they built in 1952. Indeed, many local authorities in the so-called low-cost areas expected annually before 25th November about one-third of the subsidy which they expected for every house which they built 13 years ago. I am sure that my hon. Friends will want to rejoice that at last that trend towards reduced subsidies has been reversed. I need no convincing that there is a direct connection between the amount of money made available in this way and the number of houses which may be built.
When one compares the housing records of nearly all our neighbours and competitors in Europe, the sad fact becomes most obvious that those who spent appreciably more of their national income on fixed capital for new housing are those who built appreciably more houses. The great fault of this nation over the last 13 years in its house-building programme is that we have not built an adequate number of houses because we have never been prepared to allocate enough of the national resources towards doing so. We have not accepted the basic fact that this is not something which can be left to


private individuals making a private effort but is something in which the entire community has responsibility and in which the entire community has obligations.
Nearly three years ago I was very much concerned with a letter which the Association of Municipal Corporations sent to the then Minister of Housing—a letter which was completely unheeded, but which, I think, put the position exactly and precisely. That letter said that
without an increase in the rate of subsidy, the burden"—
meaning the financial burden—
is already becoming such as to deter local authorities from carrying out their responsibility for providing an adequate number of new dwellings".
The importance of that letter was ignored, or at least underestimated, by the then Minister. The increase in subsidy did not take place. During the 18 months which have passed since that letter, many local authorities, such as the large city which I in part represent, have found the increased burden which that letter talked about to be so great as to make them face with the greatest reluctance, the fact that there was at least the possibility of their having to abandon their housing programme altogether.
I, of course, accept that an increase in subsidies does not automatically increase the percentage of national income being spent on new houses, but I am sure that the way in which this Bill intends to increase the subsidy payment will do exactly that. It will, in fact, have two great redistributive effects. It will take from the whole of the nation and give to the least well housed, and it will take from the whole field of spending and give to the most important field of spending—the production of new and necessary houses.
I do not want to join in the argument which hon. Members opposite have promoted this afternoon about the so-called rivalry between building for private ownership and owner-occupation, and building for council house tenancy. I think that an argument on the ideal, the perfect form of tenancy and of occupation, is an entirely sterile one. I do not think one can make an assessment about one form of housing being preferable to another, but what I can say and what I must say in this debate is that only

one form of financial assistance helps to provide houses which directly—I emphasise directly—do the two jobs which we need to tackle with the utmost urgency—clearing the slums and clearing the waiting lists.
I make no apology for saying, and I have no hesitation in saying, that those of us who enjoy private accommodation or owner-occupation may well have received benefit and had our needs promoted over the last 13 years at the expense of people whose needs are infinitely greater. I repeat—because I think it bears repeating—that the great social problems of the slums—and they are increasing not decreasing, they have grown over the last 13 years and the great social problem of the waiting lists, which have lengthened over the last 13 years, can only be solved by municipal housing. In the city I represent, Birmingham, and in my own home town, Sheffield, both problems have grown, not decreased, in the last 13 years.
Those two great problems can only be solved by municipal building, and if I am asked to choose between one priority and another in providing houses I have no hesitation in the choice I make. I say that municipal building must have priority because municipal building produces the most effective results in this field.
Naturally, therefore, I am delighted this afternoon to recognise that the proposals for the basic subsidy provided in this Bill are likely to increase the subsidy for new houses built by each local authority from at best some £24 per annum to an average of £60 to £70 per annum, and I have no doubt that it is going to produce more houses and produce them more quickly. It will enable those authorities to afford the new and expensive techniques which make accelerated house building possible. It is going to enable local authorities to pay the greater bills they have to pay to attract scarce labour and scarce materials away from other more remunerative but less important fields of building.
It will, in fact, facilitate additional building rate, but a greater rate of house building and a greater speed and quantity, is only one of the requirements. The second requirement must be to provide building of the right sort and to


ensure it is made available to the people who need it most at rents they can afford.
I was delighted to read in the White Paper of 25th November:
The Government intend that the improved subsidies should be used to raise housing standards.
I believe we are fast approaching the time when the Minister should think most seriously about saying to local authorities or to their associations that houses which are not built according to Parker Morris standards, houses which will not pass the scrutiny of his Department and will not rate for the same quantity and the same volume of subsidy as other developments. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said this afternoon, quite rightly, that the houses we are building today must be acceptable by the standards of 1970 and tolerable by the standard of 2000. There are far too many corporation houses being built in this country which, because of recent financial stringency are designed at far too low a standard.
I wonder most seriously whether we can continue to subsidise those houses at the same rate as others, and also—and I say this with the greatest regret—whether there are not many local authorities which allocate their houses in such a way that they too must be subject to some pressure from the Minister. Many local authorities allocate their houses in such a way that they discriminate against, certain sections of the population and make the acquisition of their houses almost impossible for certain classes of people.
Again, I wonder whether the time has not come for the Minister to impose on them sanctions a good deal more severe than—I was going to say than they enjoy, but that is scarcely the right word—they endure at this moment; whether the time has not come for them to be told that unless the houses they build, financed by the proposals we are debating this afternoon, are allocated in a way which conforms to the simple justice and equity, financial help will not be available to them.
I have the very greatest respect and the very greatest admiration for the local authorities in this country. Indeed, for seven years before I came here I was inti-

mately involved in the government of a great city and I spent three years—three years hard—as chairman of a housing committee, but, notwithstanding that, I feel that the attitudes of some local authorities are such that they require urgent guidance, precise guidance, from the Ministry. While this House, traditionally and properly, is reluctant to impose its will in detail on local authorities which are properly dealing with local matters, I wonder if the time has not come when the Minister, in two fields—the field of allocation policy and the field of rent policy—should say that unless a local authority conforms to certain basic standards the increased subsidy, the enhanced subsidy, which we are proposing and certainly will pass tonight, will not be made available to it.
I want to say two or three words about the principle of financing housing by grant based on the rate of interest. Fortuitously, I am sure,the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has just returned. Of the many things he said which astounded me the one which astounded me most was the suggestion that by basing the subsidy on the rate of interest the Minister was in some ways encouraging financial irresponsibility on the part of the local authorities.
If we accept that subsidy should vary with need, that areas of high cost should receive extra help—a principle accepted crudely in the 1961 proposals—it is inevitable that some local authorities are bound to choose to build, or occasionally be forced to build, apparently expensive houses. Some of this added cost will result from their enthusiasm for higher quality, some from the need to compete with more remunerative forms of building, but undoubtedly the Minister has safeguards he can impose to ensure there is not lack of thrift or absence of prudence.
There are two safeguards. The first is that the general approval of the Ministry of Housing must be given to any developments before they are passed for loan sanction. In my own experience, under, admittedly, a different dispensation, there was the greatest difficulty in superimposing on any basically utilitarian housing scheme something which might have been included because of overambitious architects or under-prudent treasurers.
The second and perhaps more trenchant safeguard against extravagance is that the subsidy does not meet 100 per cent. of the bill. It is true that the corporation that builds houses at £3,500 each gets larger amounts of subsidy than the corporation that builds houses at £3,250 each, but it does not get the full additional £250. Every time it increases the average cost of its building, part of that increase has to be met by the local authority itself. That is a most potent safeguard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) reminds me that when I talk about a local authority meeting bills, what I should remember and what the House should remember is that I am talking about an individual family having to meet expenditure and pay bills, and that it is an intensely human matter which should be considered in those terms rather than in the more global terms of local authority expenditure. The individual tenants of the local authority that they elect are paying more every time a council house is built at an extra cost, and that is a most potent prevention of buildings being erected in a way which does not conform to normal financial standards.
That was the second most extraordinary point which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames made. The primary one was his suggestion that by gearing the subsidy to the rate of interest the Minister of Housing and Local Government would in some way be acting in direct conflict with budgetary policy, the theory being that when the rate of interest was increased as a national remedy for inflation, the subsidy that a corporation would be receiving would be so geared that that corporation's housing committee would be encouraged to accelerate its house building instead of reducing it. How one can advance that theory about a proposal, the basis of which is a static rate of interest remaining constant irrespective of increases or decreases in Bank Rate, defeats me.

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend asked the specific question whether the Minister retained powers in the Bill to see that if local authorities were extravagant or luxurious in their methods, he could

correct it. The answer is "Yes". It is here, as in previous Bills, and it appears in Clause 2(1). It is carefully written in that, provided the Minister has seen that the cost has been "reasonably incurred", the subsidy shall be paid. That is the limitation that my hon. Friend talks about.

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that specific point. I have suffered in the past under the requirements of similar provisions when developments which I thought were not extravagant were turned down by his predecessors. At that time, my authority, the first to develop Parker Morris standards, was developing them too quickly. I hope also that following my right hon. Friend's specific reference to that subsection, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will be a good deal more comforted about potential extravagance that the Bill makes possible than he appeared to be when he spoke at the beginning of this debate.
I want to turn now to some of the second subsidies and additional payments that the Bill involves. I want to express my pleasure that the high building subsidy has been changed in the way that it has. Years ago, I used to believe cynically that the then Minister of Housing confused high building with high density building and that additional subsidies were sometimes paid for no other reason than that buildings were high and expensive.
We all know of estates built on traditional lines, at the entrances of which are single point blocks which are unnecessarily expensive and usually unpopular with the tenants erected as an architectural feature. Under the old dispensation, they had only one special grace, and that was that they were expensive and for that reason they received additional subsidy. The fact remains that the Government and the Minister at the time were encouraging a type of building which was altogether undesirable.
Equally, in terms of the expensive site subsidy in Clause 10, we are still obsessed, quite rightly, with the cost of acquiring land. We have become so obsessed as a result of bitter experience. However, what we should think of more is the cost of doing things with the land


once it is acquired. Having learned my initial housing experience in a local authority which tried to build houses on the foothills of the Pennines, I understand that a site can be expensive in two ways. It can be commercially expensive and geologically or geographically expensive. I hope that additional subsidy will be found for local authorities who, in the national interest and in the civic interest, choose to develop estates on land which is most difficult to build upon but which is all that they have available if other amenities are to be preserved. I hope that we can start thinking of expensive sites in geological, if that is the right word, as well as commercial terms.
Finally, I wonder if there is not a case for a more complicated second set of subsidies which include other increments for problems and disadvantages that some specific towns suffer to differing degrees. There are the problems of those towns with enormous decaying centres. In that connection, I compare the city of Sheffield with the city of Birmingham. Their housing problems are different in part as, for reasons of history and sociology, Sheffield does not have to endure an inner ring of decaying property which is not quite designatable as slums but which is certainly unpleasant to live in and something with which the Government, both local and national, have not come to grips. The problem of immigrants in those areas is secondary and subsidiary. The two things naturally go together, but they are only in part connected. I wonder if there is not a case for problems of that sort attracting a special subsidy if they are tackled with determination.
The argument against second subsidies is that which says that subsidies are already sufficiently complicated without over-complicating them. I have never understood the argument which says that housing subsidies have to be simple. The people who enjoy them do not understand what a subsidy is, and, if they get it at all, they think that it is too little. The only people required to understand it are members of local authorities, who rarely do, and city and borough treasurers, who sometimes do. [Interruption.] I am sure that it would be entirely out of order if I repeated the additional suggestion made to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If one has to choose between complication and equity, I choose equity every time. I represent a constituency which has all the housing problems. It has municipal housing which is already so costly that many prosperous working men find it difficult to meet their housing bills. It includes slums which have gone on uncleared for so long that they are a local sore and a national scandal. It includes a decaying central area about which there are no development proposals and for which there is little hope.
If I had to choose between a pattern of subsidy which was so complicated that the residents did not understand it, and one which was so simple that it did not meet the aims intended, I would choose the complicated one every time.
I acknowledge that the criticisms which I have made of the Bill are essentially marginal. I also acknowledge that I may well have overstated them, but if I have I have done so for the most respectable of intellectual reasons, namely, that my general enthusiasm for the principle of the Bill might have led me to overlook the marginal defects which I have criticised, and, naturally, much as I admire what the Bill sets out to do, I would not like my criticisms to go by default. Equally, I would not like anyone here, or indeed anyone outside, to think that I have anything but admiration for the spirit and intention of the Bill.
Occasionally, after some days of taking no very positive part in the life of the House, of attending constantly in the hope of adding one's vote to the Government's majority, one feels that a single decision makes everything worthwhile. One feels that one action, one day's debate, one evening's decision, one decision on its own, makes all the hours, all the time and all the work worthwhile and proper. This is such a Bill this afternoon, and I vote for it with as much enthusiasm, in fact perhaps more enthusiasm, than for anything that has come before this House during the last 14 months.

7.11 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am not in the least surprised to find that I am in agreement with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has just said. I can hardly share the enthusiasm which rather uncharacteristically animated the


last part of his speech, but there was one central thesis with which I found myself strongly in agreement. The hon. Gentleman said that we would never get enough houses unless we devoted enough of our national resources to the problem. I am sure that he is right there, but it leads me to a completely opposite conclusion from the one to which he came.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not mind very much if subsidies were so complicated that the people who got the benefit of them did not understand what they were all about. I am not sure that he himself quite saw the connection between that demand and the earlier point that he was making, because if we as a nation are going to devote enough of our resources to solving the housing problem, then, being a democratic country, we as individuals must also be prepared to devote enough of our own resources to housing, to see that the nation as a whole devotes a corresponding proportion to solving the problem. If, because of a very complicated system of subsidies, the individual is kidded into believing that he can be housed at a cost to himself well below the real cost of providing that housing, he will never vote for measures which will put aside enough of the nation's resources to solve the nations housing problem.
There is a very good phrase in a pamphlet published by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and Mr. Geoffrey Rippon. Talking about the high proportion of council tenants who comprised the electorate in certain local authorities, they said that council tenants would always be tempted to vote for indulgent landlords rather than for good local government. I think that that is a very penetrating phrase, because it highlights the point that, just as one may say that the nation ought to spend all this money on housing, so people should be prepared to follow it through and say, "I myself must be prepared to devote such-and-such a proportion of my income to housing myself". I do not believe that there is as much difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself as there might have appeared to be.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am far from happy about the Bill. This is not so much because of what is in it. I

say that because, unlike many of the Measures which we have had recently from the right hon. Gentleman, this is a Bill which is not so bad in detail as in object. It is bad in object because it misses the opportunity of making very much more selective, and therefore very much more effective, use of public money to promote an expansion of the housing programme.
Above all—and I say this as the Member for a constituency in which the main borough, under a Socialist-controlled council, refuses to introduce any kind of rent rebate scheme—the Bill fails to take the opportunity of providing a strong incentive to local authorities to introduce such schemes. To borrow a phrase used by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), it fails to chuck the Mills bomb into the "loo". This is possibly the last opportunity which the party opposite will have to put pressure on local councils to adopt schemes of this sort.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has put an exhortation to local authorities in paragraph 41 of the White Paper. For what it is worth, the chairman of the tenancy committee in my local authority indignantly denies that the Minister has even mentioned rent rebate schemes, and I derived considerable pleasure from pointing out the relevant passage in the White Paper.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. Meyer: I shall not hesitate to quote some very sensible words spoken by the Minister on this point a few minutes ago in an intervention, and I hope that this will induce the local authority to adopt a more reasonable attitude, because, in an area where there is a high proportion of council tenants, it is difficult to adopt policies which may mean a rise of rent for quite a sizeable proportion of the local electorate.
At the moment, it is not merely the Exchequer subsidy which is being used to keep the whole level of rents artificially low right across the board. In the case of Slough, and I think in many other local authorities, some of the yield of the rate is also being used to keep council rents low right across the board. I am not


going to argue the case—because I think it has been argued sufficiently—of who does best or worst out of this bargain, the council tenant or the owner-occupier, because it is not so much that contrast with which I am concerned. I am much more concerned about the relative plight of the council tenant, and the person who at the present time is forced to seek and occupy privately rented accommodation. To my mind this is where the shoe really pinches. These are the people who come into my surgery, begging to be given somewhere to live. These are the people who are paying very high rents for completely inadequate accommodation.
The Minister may say that his Rent Act will take care of that. Maybe it will lead to those who are lucky enough to have decent accommodation having their rents reduced to somewhere near what they can afford to pay, but, if it does that, by the same token it will dry up the supply. Those who have nowhere to live, who are unauthorised lodgers in council houses, who are living in tied houses from which they can be evicted, despite the Protection from Eviction Act—there are such people; the evictions are now legal, but they take place just the same—can find themselves out in the street with nowhere to go.
One thing above all which these people must not do is to move outside the area of the local authority concerned. I had a pathetic case of a 77-year old lady who was evicted from a private dwelling within the Borough of Slough. She was put on the housing list, but, as she had nowhere to go in the meantime, she went to stay with her daughter who lived 200 yards outside the borough, on an estate managed by the borough. The daughter's family came home and she wanted the room. She therefore wanted to turn her mother out.
The mother went to the Slough Borough Council and said, "I have lived for 20 years in this borough. I am on your waiting list. Can you find me accommodation?" The borough council said, "No. Your present address is outside the borough. You cannot be considered for accommodation by us. You must address yourself to the council in whose area you are now living." That council might have a two-year qualifying period so the mother would not qualify.

She is 77 years of age, and will have a long time to wait. She was told that she must find herself an address in the borough so that she would qualify.
This is a situation to which the Minister should devote his attention. It does not occur very frequently, but it can produce tragic results, and I cannot believe that there is no scope for better co-operation among local authorities in this matter. I know that it is not easy because neighbouring authorities may have entirely different systems of allocating accommodation. None the less, there could be better co-operation, and the Minister could give a lead in this respect.
These people who are evicted, and who are trying to find somewhere to live, could be forgiven if they occasionally felt that the attitude adopted towards them at their town hall could be expressed in the words "You cannot have anywhere to live until you find somewhere to live, and when you find somewhere to live you will not need anywhere to live." This seems to be the line which many housing managers are compelled to take, under great pressure. I admit that they are under great pressure. I am being very harsh with my local council for its failure to introduce a differential rent scheme, but I admit that it is an extremely difficult position.
I think that it is making its problem very much worse by keeping rents artificially low, however. People are attracted into the area because of the possibility of earning very high wages and by the promise—which may turn out to be illusory—of being able to live in a house which has a low rent, because all the rents are kept at an artificially low level. There seems to be a direct connection between a sensible rent policy and a sensible policy for the allocation of houses to people who most need them.
Here, surely, is common ground between the two sides of the House. We argue backwards and forwards with one side supporting council tenants and the other supporting owner-occupiers, but surely we both agree on the need to ensure that council house accommodation which is housing at a rate below the market rate, whether or not there is a subsidy—because even when there is a rent rebate scheme or an economic


rent it is still below the market rate—goes to those in the greatest need. Most councils have a system of allocation which more or less ensures that. There may be hard cases, one way or the other, but allocation schemes generally ensure that. But does council house accommodation remain with those in the greatest need? Will a young couple with small children running about have an equal need for the same accommodation 20 years later, when the children have grown up and have left home?

Mr. Julius Silverman: What does the hon. Member want the local authorities to do—throw these people out? Is that Tory policy?

Sir A. Meyer: We certainly do not want to throw them out, but if we have a situation in which the general level of rents is roughly the same throughout there is no encouragement for anybody who is living in a house which is too large for them to move into a smaller house. When there is so little difference in the rents that are paid it is not worthwhile to move out. There is a need for a more sensible rent structure so that people are encouraged to move from a house which is too large for them into a smaller house, making a saving in the process.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Who will provide the smaller house?

Sir A. Meyer: We hope that the councils, with these lavish subsidies, will produce balanced housing programmes with a proper proportion of smaller and larger accommodation. It is no good hon. Members opposite getting indignant at the idea that somebody should be encouraged to move from a house that has become too big for him.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the majority of local authorities the average rent charged for two-, three-or four-bedroomed accommodation is almost the same as the weekly mortgage payments on a similar type of house, and possibly more in some circumstances? A person aged between 45 and 50 is not able to provide the capital to put down as a deposit, even if he wants to move out of corporation property, but he might still be paying more

than he would be for equivalent private property.

Sir A. Meyer: That is another question. I was not saying that people should be encouraged to buy their own property—although that is also worth considering, and we should devise ways of helping them to do so—hut was thinking in terms of encouraging them to move into other subsidised council house property, smaller than that in which they are living at present.
A majority of councils operate no rent rebate schemes or economic rent schemes. This problem is becoming more and more absurd. Certainly in the South the majority of tenants of council houses are well able to afford to pay more—not always substantially more—than they are at the moment, and there is a minority who are not able to pay even those rents which they are now being charged, at the present artificially low level. It is no good saying that people who cannot afford to pay even their present low rent can go to the National Assistance Board. Very often they consist of families with one wage earner, earning about £14 a week, who has a wife and children to support, and whose wife is not earning. For a family of that kind a rent of £3 10s. a week is probably too much. That is about the level which prevails under the scheme of universally slightly depressed rents, with subsidies spread all over the place.
These families could be helped by a proper differential rent scheme, but they do not come in under the aegis of the National Assistance Board because their income is quite a long way above the level at which they could come in. The Minister is missing a first-class opportunity of bringing pressure to bear—perhaps that is the wrong word—or missing the opportunity of providing effective inducements and incentives to local authorities to adopt more sensible schemes for the distribution of subsidies.

Mr. Crossman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member. Does he suggest that the Minister ought to induce them to do this? What kind of pressures is he referring to?

Sir A. Meyer: I should have thought that it would be simple enough to insert a Clause providing that part or all of the


main subsidy envisaged under Clause 1 or 2 would be dependent upon the adoption by the local authorities concerned of a system of rents approved by the Minister. I am not suggesting that the Ministry should lay down exactly what system should be used, because there must be elasticity, and these schemes must vary enormously from one part of the country to another and one authority to another. But the Minister should take general power to approve or disapprove of certain systems.

Mr. Crossman: Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should make the payment of the subsidy conditional upon the system of rent operated by a certain authority having been approved by the Minister?

Sir A. Meyer: Yes. I am suggesting a general approval for the type of system used.
Another point was raised rather cryptically by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Perhaps I can be rasher than he was and spell it out. Most local authorities have managed so to arrange their affairs that no immigrant family has yet succeeded in finding itself on a housing list—or, at any rate, at the top of a housing list. I should be very interested at the end of the debate to hear the Minister's comments on whether he thinks that all local authorities are playing perfectly fair on this, because I am sure that we all agree that by any definition the greatest hardship in housing and the worst cases of overcrowding are to be found among immigrant families, and it seems rather odd that somehow or other these families never find themselves at the top of the list.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member has been kind enough to associate me with what he has just said, suggesting that 1 said more cryptically what he has spelled out. I should have made it plain that in my own local authority, the City of Birmingham, I am constantly seeing immigrants who, having met the prescribed qualifications—not all of which I agree with—and served the prescribed waiting time, are being rehoused by that local authority.

Sir A. Meyer: I am interested to hear that. I wish that I could maintain that this was the general practice throughout

the country. The whole principle of a qualifying period of residence being necessary before one can get to the top of the housing list is one of the matters on which the Minister might at least give guidance, and if the reception which has been given to the guidance which he has already set out in the White Paper is anything to go by, he may have to go a little beyond guidance and to provide at least some incentive.
Most local authorities have this qualifying period of residence. I should not like to express a very firm opinion one way or another about this. It is a problem in a local authority which is an attractive area in which to live to know whether to impose a residence qualification. Certainly in Slough if we had no residence qualification we should be flooded by people coming into the area to seek the high wages available there.
It is because there is this large number of matters in which the Minister has contented himself with exhortation or which he has passed over in silence that I feel that the Bill is missing an opportunity which is unlikely to recur again to this Government. The right hon. Gentleman, who is the Stakhanovite of the Labour Party, has produced a great many Bills. Some of them, with amendment, could have become very good Bills if he had been ready to listen to suggestions.
The present Bill is in quite a different category. I do not see a great many faults with it in detail, although my hon. Friends have pointed out some of them, but to my mind the basic premise of the Bill is at fault. The basic premise of the Bill is an indiscriminate use of subsidies to authorities all over the country regardless of their need and without any attempt to enforce a discriminate use of subsidies within those authorities. It is ironic that the right hon. Gentleman, who is certainly the most brilliant, probably the most able and to my mind one of the the most likeable Ministers of the Government should be the one who is to cause the most widespread damage and the most lasting harm to his party's reputation in the country.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) seems to have very little knowledge of what local authorities are


doing. He said that local authorities should try to persuade tenants living in large houses to move into small houses. As far as I know, that practice is followed certainly in all the Lancashire authorities and I imagine in probably every local authority in the country.
In Liverpool we have a problem the other way round. In the past we had a Conservative local authority which did not face up to the fact that this would ultimately become a problem and, as a result, we have insufficient one-bedroom and two-bedroom flats. We are faced with a very difficult problem of old people living in large family houses who want to move into smaller accommodation but we have not the accommodation into which they can move. This has presented our local authority with a very difficult problem indeed.
I want to raise one or two points in relation to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). For example, he said that it was wrong of the Government to raise in the Bill the question of reducing the subsidy on high-rise flats. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in thinking that the right hon. Member has failed to understand that high-rise flats do not of necessity mean high density flats. Anyone who has been intimately concerned with housing problems knows that the Ministry's planners have carried out a whole series of studies and have proved conclusively that it is possible to get high density without necessarily having high rise. It seems to me that this ought to be advanced a little further, because high-rise flats in themselves create more problems than they solve. What do we do if we have a large number of children living on the top floor of a 20-storey block of flats? Where do they play? May the tenants keep dogs and cats? Before the right hon. Gentleman makes statements of that kind he should look a little more closely into some of the studies which his Department, when he was running it in the past, carried out into this type of problem.
He also referred to Circular No. 50, which apparently is frightening the Conservative Party to death about direct labour work. I wonder whether they are

concerned about direct labour departments being put in a better position than private enterprise—as they suggest—or about the Circular putting the direct labour department on a parity with private enterprise, as is a fact. It will create genuine competition between direct works departments, on the one side, and private enterprise firms, on the other. Why should they be afraid of that? They are being very doctrinaire about direct works departments.
I was chairman of a direct works department, and I accept that direct work in itself does not necessarily mean that it will be an efficient organisation. Nor does the fact that it is private enterprise mean necessarily that an organisation will be efficient. The number of building employers who have gone to the wall in this country because of inefficiency is legion. It is, therefore, not a question whether it is direct works or private enterprise; it is a question whether it is run efficiently. An efficiently-run direct works department not only assists the local authority to produce the houses more quickly but it can also be a norm for the two sides to judge each other on costs.

Mr. Graham Page: Does not the hon. Member agree that the direct labour department of a local authority should go into competition periodically by putting one project in three out to tender, in the same way as a private builder has to compete in tenders with other builders? Is not this a discipline which does no harm but a lot of good to the direct labour department?

Mr. Heffer: If private enterprise building in many local authorities went out to tender in that way there might be some merit in what the hon. Member said. But there have been local authorities who, for many years, have negotiated contracts with builders and have never gone out to competition at all. I consider that to be wholly wrong, but it has been done. All that this Circular does is put the direct works departments on a par with private enterprise firms. It still does not mean that they must not go out to tender, nor that the local authority should not look at this cost and compare it with the cost of other buildings.
In the last analysis, the Ministry decides whether or not this cost is right.


We have had some examples in Liverpool, including that of the Unit Construction Company. The local authority negotiated that agreement and your Ministry, when you were in power—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member will turn towards the Chair, he will not drop into the bad habit of not addressing the Chair.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but direct labour is something I know and about which I feel passionately—

Mr. Mellish: I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene, as he is on a very important point and he has been interrupted by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. The other aspect of direct labour which must also be considered is that those concerned, like private enterprise firms, also need continuity, particularly in industrialised building. It is essential, if we are to ensure a good future for direct labour, that they too should feel assured of a long run, which will guarantee their position. This is a problem which must be taken into account.

Mr. Heffer: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for that comment and I will pursue this point no further.
I want to come back to the Bill. I welcome it very much. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to those authorities which have immense housing problems and large housing programmes. I represent part of a city which has one of the most serious housing problems in the country. There is not only a large number of slum dwellings, but also—this is rather interesting—a high birth rate, which creates a serious problem for us in the continuous provision of new accommodation for the coming generation.
The subsidies will help us in two ways, first because we shall be able to borrow the money at an interest rate of 4 per cent. and second because we may, under one or two other Clauses—possibly Clause 5—get some additional assistance. I am not certain about this, but I am sure that my city treasurer and the housing director will be carefully considering the effect of these Clauses. There is no question that the Bill is a great advance on anything which has

gone before. It means that the Government, despite all our economic difficulties, are getting down to the problems of housing and assisting local authorities to provide the houses.
However, there are certain weaknesses in the Bill, which I hope will be eradicated in Committee. It provides that the new subsidies:
… will be payable only in respect of housing in tenders approved by resolution of the recipient authority on or after 25th November, 65"—
and that—
… the proposed increases will not become substantial until the financial year 1967–68.
That means that there will be a delay of two or three years. We must be quite honest and realistic about this: some local authorities, certainly in the large conurbations, will require some "first aid" in the meantime. They cannot wait that long before the Bill becomes effective.
My local authority—I am certain that this is true of many others—is faced with a serious deficit in the housing revenue account. This problem can be solved in two ways. Either the rents should be fairly substantially increased, or there should be an increase in the rates. That is why I hope that the Government will accept in Committee an Amendment, possibly along the lines of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, to ensure their giving serious consideration to second subsidies. It is basically Liverpool's high birth rate and slum clearance problems which cause the authority immense financial difficulties.
I must emphasise that the problems which local authorities face are caused by the high interest charges they have had to pay in the past. I know the situation in my own city, so I will quote the figures for Liverpool. In 1962–63, on the permanent housing account, the Liverpool Corporation paid out £3,418,248 in interest. In 1963–64, it had increased to £3,759,276 and in 1964–65, it had again increased to £4,551,327. At the same time, because the authority intends to meet the terrible housing need, it has carried out its programme and borrowed, last year, £9,137,000 in order to do so.
This is absolutely fantastic. On the one hand, we are borrowing £9 million in order to build houses for our people and, on the other, we are paying out £4½ million in interest for money borrowed


in the past. This money is taken from the pockets of those who pay the rents and rates and paid straight into the pockets of the moneylenders and big bankers. This is an unnecessary burden for the local authorities. The position is perhaps made a little clearer if I point out that the total increase on expenditure of £1,094,000 in permanent housing in 1964–65 was largely accounted for by an increase of £862,000 on loan charges in one year.
This is fantastic. This is the problem we face. There is a deficiency in Liverpool's housing revenue account at the moment of £1,110,000. As I say, this problem can be solved by an increase either of rents or of rates. I do not accept that we must increase corporation rents, nor do I like the idea of a general rate increase. In this area, which includes the Prime Minister's constituency, is the urban district of Kirby, which was built by Liverpool Corporation, which owns the houses. Rates have been increased to meet the Corporation's subsidies, and the people of Kirby do not pay a penny. The full burden is borne by the people of Liverpool.
This is grossly unfair. That is why I ask that the Government should have a close look at this to see whether some financial assistance could be provided, possibly in the form of second subsidies, to assist local authorities.
I appreciate that hon. Gentlemen opposite will ask, "Why not increase rents and charge economic rents?" Let us consider the facts. For low-rise flats, for a one-bedroomed flat costing £2,500 to build the economic rent is £3 16s. 11d. per week; for a two-bedroomed flat costing £2,900 it is £4 7s. 9d. and for a three-bedroomed flat the rent is £4 18s. 6d. For a high-rise, of course, it is worse. It goes up from £5 a week for a one-bedroomed dwelling to £6 8s. ld. for a three-bedroomed one.
It is said that we do not charge economic rents. We have a certain measure of subsidy, but even with that we have rents varying from £3 7s. 8d. to £5 2s. 10d. a week. If we increased these rents by, say, 10s. a week one would not need to be a Liverpool docker but a flaming millionaire to live in a corporation house. It is also nonsense to talk about the high

wages which people are receiving in this area. A Liverpool docker, with overtime, brings home £14 to £15 a week. Without overtime it is down to £11 a week. Imagine that man having to pay £5 2s. 10d. for a corporation dwelling.
Even if we subsidise our rents to the tune of about £330,000, which is being proposed, we will still have to increase them by between 9s. ld. and 10s. 8d. a week. It must also be remembered that since 1960 we have increased our rents on two occasions, although there have been constant rises in rates. In 1960 there was an average increase of 2s. 6d. a week, while in 1962 we introduced a 'rent rebate scheme and most people were forced to pay an average increase of 14s. a week.
I have mentioned these facts and figures to show that we are already charging realistic rents—indeed, perhaps more than realistic when one considers the low income nature of the Merseyside. It is all very well to talk about Birmingham and what is being done there, but in my area we have only just got a motor car factory and only recently have some of the workers been receiving higher incomes. We have always been a low income area with a high level of unemployment.
I urge the Government to seriously consider the points I have mentioned and, if possible, introduce an Amendment in Committee to meet this difficulty. Conurbations like Merseyside face a real problem indeed and unless further action is taken I cannot see how it will he solved.
The question which is bound to be asked is this; from where will the money come? My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) made the position clear. We have an immense arms bill to meet at present and I should like to see that considerably reduced. The defence review is taking place and I hope that drastic reductions—even more drastic than some have suggested—will be made in our arms expenditure so that cities like Liverpool and areas like Merseyside can be given a second subsidy, for only in that way will our immense housing problem be solved.
The White Paper points out that places like Merseyside, Glasgow and Birmingham need a special effort by the nation


to solve their housing problems. I fear that the Bill does not make provision for such an extra special effort. Because of this, I suggest the setting up of a building corporation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will, no doubt, say that the work I have in mind could be done by private enterprise. If it could, then I will not argue with them. Suffice to say that such a building corporation should contain a mobile squadron of builders who would be concentrated in areas of need arid be geared to erect houses quickly using the latest industrialised methods of building. This would remove the need for long periods of apprenticeship and people could be trained for this special work.
We have talked about the sort of military operation that is needed to solve the housing problem. By concentrating our resources and manpower on the areas of need a building corporation could undertake such an operation. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this suggestion because something of this sail is needed if the problem is to be solved.
Although I have been somewhat critical of the Bill, I support it and will defend it throughout the country. It proves that the Government are anxious to carry out the pledges given at the last election and it contrasts favourably with the lack of enterprise during 13 years of Tory rule.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Sir SAMUEL STOREY, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: There are three principal problems which must be faced when framing a new system of subsidies. They are, first, the differing needs of local authorities—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has spoken of the difficulties of a housing authority in a low income area; I am glad to have the chance to tell him that there is another side to the coin—secondly, to ensure that the subsidy goes to those in need and

not indiscriminately; and, thirdly, to ensure the economic use of our national resources.
On the first, the differing needs of local authorities, it is interesting to note that, for the first time in the debate, the hon. Member for Walton quoted statistics which illustrated what we mean when we speak about true economic rents. Hon. Members have tended to assume that an economic rent can be worked out after taking account of the subsidy involved; in other words, that this is the way to work out a rent rebate scheme.
Before proceeding further with that, it should be pointed out that some local authorities have good stocks of council houses—perhaps because the houses built years ago have been paid for or were built more cheaply and at lower interest rates —and have little need to build further. Such authorities are sitting pretty. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) pointed out that a good stock of council houses provides a local authority with a hidden bonus. Thus, I do not see how one can produce a subsidy scheme which will be fair to both sides.
I would be grateful if the Government would say whether they think that council tenants, as their incomes expand, should be asked to pay higher rents into the pool in order to keep a reasonable general level of rents, rather than that some tenant occupying a pre-war subsidised house should go on paying, perhaps, 18s. a week, when the cost of a new £3,000 house at 6¾ per cent. is reflected in a rent of 86s. a week—

Mr. Julius Silverman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what he is saying is not so. In most large cities, the pre-war tenants, or the earlier tenants, are suffering substantial rent increases in order to meet the cost of the new expensive flats.

Mr. Allason: I agree, and I only asked whether the Government accepted the position, because not all tenants do. Tenant associations take a very dim view of their rents being increased to help pay for a substantial increase in council house building. Do the Government think that rents should be levelled out, or do they think that each house should be assessed and paid for individually according to the subsidy that has been allotted to it?
I think it right that tenants should be asked, as their incomes increase, to share in the cost of local authority housing so that the subsidy originally directed to their houses is used to help that for the more expensive newer houses. But if we continue that process over the next 60 years, it is evident that incomes will then be far higher than anything of which we now dream. I am sure that no one in 1945 thought that the average wage today would be £20 a week. As incomes rise, so it will become more possible for people to pay nearer the economic rent——

Mr. Julius Silverman: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "economic rent"? Does he mean the market rate, or the rent based on the unsubsidised cost of the council house?

Mr. Allason: I had explained my view that the rent should be based on the unsubsidised cost of the house. The present economic rent for a £3,000 house is 86s. ——

Mr. R. W. Brown: In an area which the hon. Gentleman knows well and with which he has been associated, that statement is grossly inaccurate. The economic rent for the type of property being built is £8 10s.

Mr. Allason: The example I gave was of a £3,000 house with interest at 6¾ per cent. The economic rent for that house—that is, the break-even point, without taking account of subsidy—is 86s.——

Mr. Brown: But the hon. Gentleman forgets that the land has, to be bought, in the first place, and that it is the price of the land plus the price of the house that the tenant has to pay for.

Mr. Allason: It does not necessarily cost £3,000 to build a house. A fairly satisfactory house can be built for £2,500. The £3,000 allows for the cost of the site, the drains and the roads. That is the total sum. A local authority house costing £4,000 means a 33⅓ per cent. increase in costs, which brings the economic rent up to about 120s. But I am speaking of the house costing the council £3,000. I say that a very substantial subsidy over 60 years will be uneconomic, because within 25 years the council

tenant may find that the economic rent is absolute chicken feed.
I notice that the Minister has included a Clause that enables him to cut off the subsidy whenever he feels like it, and that seems to me to create a great difficulty. Local authorities always want to rely on the fact that whatever the subsidy may be, they will get it over the whole period of the loan, but this Clause provides that the Minister can shut it off——

Mr. Mellish: A lot has been made about this Clause, but what it does has been done before. This was done in legislation passed by the previous Government. I understand that there was consultation with local authorities about this matter, and that there was no objection on their part. There is also the provision of a 10-year period during which no action can be taken by the Minister of the day. There is nothing sinister about this provision.

Mr. Allason: In other legislations there has been a 10-year period and that may be the case herewith when the Bill is passed. There are grounds for having a break period where there is a very substantial subsidy, and that comes a year after a very high interest rate.
The second point is to ensure that the subsidy goes to those in need. We have had quite a discussion on that aspect, but I should like to see the Bill encouraging local authorities to operate differential rent schemes and, better still, encouraging local authority tenants to want diffential rent schemes. Not many of them do, but if there were a lower subsidy when the local authority did not operate a differential rent scheme there would be a definite inducement for tenants to want such a scheme.
These tenants are very sensible, reasonable people. They understand quite a lot about housing subsidies, and they would appreciate that the operation of a scheme would be in their interest. They are equally reasonable people, who do not want to see the poorest members of the community harassed by too-high council rents. If they could be encouraged to want differential rent schemes it would be a great help to local authorities, because there is no doubt that many local authorities do not introduce these schemes because of fear of their tenants.
The third necessity is to make economic use of our national resources. Here, I want to get right away from subsidies and consider exactly what we should do about building. Should we have high-rise or low-rise building? I have tried to work out the break-even point above which, according to the cost of land, it is desirable to build high. I make the cost to be £30,000 per acre. Above that price it is cheaper to build high density and high blocks. Below that figure, it is cheaper to build low, and at a lower density. To build high at low density is quite ridiculous. Whatever the method of subsidy, it is always more expensive to the local authority to build high at low density than to build low. There is a tendency on the part of architects and town planners to produce castellations on the edge of semi-rural areas which are complete excrescences. It is right to build high only where there is a very high value on land, such as in great conurbations.
The Minister has the opportunity to make arrangements in this respect under the Bill. As I read it, it will be left to his exhortation and his decision. There is no definite statement as to when it is cheaper for a local authority to build at high density or low density. Over £4,000, nearly all the extra cost is paid by the Government, subject to the Minister's decision and to 75 per cent., which is not obligatory but purely optional.
Hon. Members opposite have made great play with the suggestion that the owner-occupier of a £3,000 house gets a £70 subsidy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not so. It is tax relief.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said that it was a subsidy.

Mr. Allason: I had a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) after he spoke. He told me that he agreed with the point of view I am about to express. An intending owner-occupier wanting to purchase a house for £3,000 may have the money in the savings bank, in which case he draws £3,000 and pays it over. What he loses is the income he was getting, less tax. Equally, he may decide to leave his money invested and to borrow £3,000. In this event, he receives the income from

his investment, less tax. The interest he pays on his loan is subject to tax relief. This is not a subsidy. It is an in and out transaction.

Mr. Mellish: In my experience, the average person who buys a house is the man who puts down a small deposit and borrows the remainder from a building society. Then, quite properly, the Government of the day grant him substantial tax relief on his interest payments. Is not this the man we are talking about? We are not talking about the man who pays cash for his house.

Mr. Allason: A man who has £3,000 saved up but who chooses not to use it is in precisely that position. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was discussing the position of the man who does not pay Income Tax. I agree that there is a good case for giving him a subsidy to put him in as good a position as the owner-occuper who pays the full rate of tax and receives, not a subsidy, but tax relief. In the case of a man not paying Income Tax, it would be a subsidy. There is a strong case for him getting that subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot mentioned Service men. It is very important that a Service man should be allowed to put his name down while he is serving so that he can qualify. The difficulty is that he is told to put it down with the local authority where he will work. The area where he will work may not operate this scheme. He may not be able to get anywhere to live in that area. If he proposes to live in a neighbouring rural district just alongside his place of work, he is not helped because the circular refers only to place of work. As not all councils operate this scheme, it would be advisable to widen it so that Service men could be helped in this very vital way.

Mr. Mellish: I was not here when the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) made his speech. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we sent out this circular. The vast majority of local authorities are responding well. As time passes I think that all local authorities —I say "all" with some confidence—will do their very best to ensure that ex-Service men are given the sort of rights they are entitled to expect.

Mr. Allason: I am very grateful to the Minister. In places of high employment the housing position is always the most difficult, but there is often an adjacent rural district where the housing position is not so difficult.
Yesterday the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary said this:
… I have mentioned the three measures by which we are taking positive steps to help ratepayers.… Secondly, there is the Housing Subsidies Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1125.]
I should be grateful if the Government would tell us tonight exactly how the Bill will help ratepayers, so fulfilling the Labour Party's pledge to transfer a greater amount of the burden on ratepayers to taxpayers.

Mr. Stan Newens: Is it not the fact that many local authorities are obliged to resort to rate subsidies in order to lighten the housing revenue account burden? Will not these subsidies alleviate the task of local authorities in this respect?

Mr. Allason: This will take effect in 1968–69—[Interruption.]—only slightly in 1967–68. The Labour Party's manifesto contained the words "give early relief". This is a very strange way of doing that. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary became muddled and was referring to the other promise made in the Labour manifesto, that interest rates would be reduced both for local authority housing and for owner-occupiers. I do not think this Bill fulfils that pledge either.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has stated that the promise made in our manifesto is not being fulfilled as early as he would like, but would he not agree that the Bill will provide the most generous subsidies in the whole history of municipal housing? Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill, 1964, brought in by his own Administration, gave no relief at all?

Mr. Allason: Perhaps the hon. Member did not attend the Second Reading debate on the Rating Bill. If he had, he would have heard the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) to 1,700 of his constituents who had benefited. It seems to be very much a question of how Members react to that Act in helping their own constituents.
I have given the House three tests for the way this Housing Subsidies Bill should be judged, but on all three we are in the end left with the Minister's giving or withholding of approval as the sole answer. Nowhere is it provided that these tests shall be the responsibility of local authorities. We want to see subsidies going to those in need, but we are not in any way convinced that they will invariably do so under this Bill.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), like his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), seems to show a certain division of mind. I think that it is called schizophrenia. In the first place, they say that they will vote against the Bill, adopting a "dog in the manger" attitude and arguing that, because it does not deal with the owner-occupier, the municipal tenant should not have any benefit, and, at the same time, they complain that the Bill's benefits to municipal tenants will not be brought in early enough, because they will not come till 1967–68. It is not easy to understand this confusion.

Mr. Allason: Whenever I complain, as I frequently do, about broken election pledges, my complaint is that the electorate is deluded by pledges which are not fulfilled. I complain not about pledges which ought to be made but about pledges not fulfilled once they have been made.

Mr. Silverman: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Talk of broken pledges is becoming almost a parrot cry. This Bill is a jolly good effort to redeem an election pledge, and the Government are bringing it into effect as early as they can. I wish that they could do it earlier, but it has nothing to do with broken pledges. It is part of the housing programme which is being pushed forward. I hope that, by next Session, or by the time this Bill takes financial effect, it will be possible to offer assistance to owner-occupiers as well.
The general attitude of the Opposition as evinced by the Amendment runs true to form in two different ways. In the first place, they show their malevolence towards municipal tenants, a vendetta which has been pursued by many hon.


Members, including the hon. Member who is to reply tonight. In the second place, they insist on forcing differential rent schemes upon local authorities, and this also is part of their political philosophy, the "soup-kitchen" approach to social welfare.

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will quote remarks of mine in which I have shown malevolence to municipal tenants.

Mr. Silverman: I can remember many occasions when the hon. Gentleman has talked of council tenants in that way. We can all remember them. I am not in a position to give exact references—

Mr. Graham Page: Quote them.

Mr. Silverman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I can compile a list of quotations, and, if he wants me to give it on a future occasion, I shall certainly do so.

Mr. Graham Page: Why not now?

Mr. Silverman: This is all part and parcel of the Opposition's attitude today. In effect, they are saying that council tenants and local authorities ought to be deprived of this subsidy, and they intend to vote against it. Is not that malevolent? Of course it is.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Amendment. We do not consider that the Bill is positive enough, and we have, therefore, put down a reasoned Amendment against it.

Mr. Silverman: I have read the Amendment several times, yesterday, the day before, and today, and I know all the points contained in it. The net result of the Amendment is that the Opposition are voting against a Measure which will afford assistance to municipal tenants and local authorities.
I wish that the Bill had gone further. In the nation's present financial difficulties, it may not be easy to go further, but I know that the homeless of Birmingham have reason to be grateful to the Minister on three grounds. One is that he has provided Birmingham with the land which is essential for the building of more houses. Second, by his Measures for building control and the control of office development, he has made it easier for

Birmingham to take tenders and get the labour to build local authority houses in its area. Third, this Bill provides the finance.
The consequence is that the City of Birmingham can now acquire sites and embark upon a much greater housing programme than it would otherwise have been able to do, possibly doubling its housing programme within a short time. This is why we have reason to be grateful to the Minister.
Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that the hard core of the housing problem can be dealt with only by municipal housing. The people who come to see us regularly in our "surgeries", the hard cases so often referred to by hon. Members, cannot have their needs met by the private landlord. Owner-occupation is no solution. Their need can be met only by local authority housing.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman confine his observations entirely to the United Kingdom, and does he dismiss as irrelevant what is done in the United States, Western Germany and various other countries?

Mr. Silverman: We have heard that before, and the hon. Gentleman should know the answer, but I shall probably spend my time better if I confine my attention to the Bill before us. The plain fact is that the people who come to our surgeries cannot afford owner-occupation. Whatever may be the merits of private landlordism, it is a diminishing factor in the provision of housing in this country. The party opposite did its best by the Rent Act to give inducements to the landlord, inducements which we thought far too generous, to provide accommodation in rented houses. It has not worked. The amount of such provision has diminished by about 1 million homes since the Rent Act was introduced. With all respect to the Milner Holland Report, I doubt whether the fiscal reforms it suggests would add to the volume of rented houses. I am not attacking landlordism now but merely pointing out an historical fact which cannot be denied.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, under the 13 years of Conservative Government, the number


of new houses built by private landlords at reasonable rents was almost nonexistent?

Mr. Silverman: The number of houses, I agree, built by private landlords for rent was virtually non-existent, apart from luxury building. Even before the Rent Act, 1957, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, it was provided that newly built houses should not be subject to rent control. Nevertheless, very few have been built. Thus, the local authorities are the only people who can provide the houses to rent. Housing associations have a contribution to make but it cannot be other than small. I welcome a multiplicity of agencies but overwhelmingly the burden will be borne by the local authorities.
The burden of rent on those occupying houses built before the war has been mentioned. The situation is that new houses, and especially flats, even after Government subsidy, have cost the local authorities in rates anything from £120 to £200 a year in subsidy. In these circumstances, the local authorities, with the problem increasing from year to year, with higher costs and higher rates of interest, have had to decide how to distribute the burden. They can do so either by putting it on to the ratepayers, who do not like it, or by increasing the rents of municipal tenants, who also do not like it and resent it. That has been the dilemma of the local authorities and the consequence is that in Birmingham, Manchester and many other places there have been large increases in the rents of pre-war tenants and other tenants.
When hon. Members opposite talk about differential rents and charging economic rents, I would remind them that, in Birmingham, as in other local authorities, 60 per cent. of the tenants are already paying economic rents in relation to what their houses cost the local council. If Birmingham had stopped building council houses in the year 1947–48, its municipal housing would be self-supporting today without a subsidy. It would be making a profit. The higher costs and the heavier burdens have come particularly in the last 10 years or so from the increased cost of building and interest rates.
One cannot go on simply transferring the burden to the pre-war tenants or to

the tenants of houses built just after the war. It is inequitable and, moreover, there is a limit to which it can be done. Any further increase would go upon the ratepayers, who would not like it.

Mr. Allason: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but would he not agree that, as incomes increase, it is reasonable to argue that municipal tenants should pay a little more over the years, remembering also inflation?

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is asking them to pay a little more. In many cases the tenants have had to pay very large increases. For instance, in Manchester and Birmingham in the past two or three years they have had to pay from 10s. to 11s. more. They had been asked to pay more and they are paying more. If this goes on, the burden will be intolerable and one cannot meet it merely by soaking the pre-war tenants.
I therefore welcome the Bill. I asked for similar provisions when Lord Hill was Minister of Housing and Local Government and I raised the matter with other Ministers of the former Government. Yet we had no relief. Now there is an attempt to meet the problem. It does not go so far as I would like but it is a great advance.
Hon. Members say that the problem should be dealt with by differential rents schemes, that there should be a means test on tenants. There are all sorts of schemes and few local authorities apply an all-out differential rent scheme. Some apply rebate schemes, as Birmingham does, which tend to assist the poorer tenants who could not otherwise afford even the rent of a municipal house. There are many objections to the overall scheme. There are grave objections including the cost of administering it, the burden which it imposes upon the housing department, through having to send inquisition forms, dealing with variations of rent, the jealousies between individual tenants and what one does about the prewar tenant who says that he is paying an economic rent already.

Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Member explain to the House what is the difference between these forms and an ordinary Income Tax form?

Mr. Silverman: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman explain what is the difference between these dreadful forms to which he has referred, for differential rents, and the form that every man who owns a house receives in connection with his Income Tax? Are they not, basically, the same inquiries?

Mr. Silverman: This is, generally speaking, a more objectionable form of means test and where it has been operated it has been very much resented by tenants. I know that this has been the case in one or two areas where it has been applied. Not only is it resented but jealousy arises between tenants and there are the informers who go along to the council and say "This tenant's income has increased why should he receive a subsidy?"

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the iniquitous form and about the local authority inquiry into the means of a tenant. I think that he used that rather hackneyed phrase "means test". This rebate scheme to which he refers, and which he says is so undesirable, is surely exactly what the Minister is hoping will be used more and more by local authorities.

Mr. Silverman: No it is not. The Minister was suggesting that local authorities should apply rebate schemes. I believe that the rebate scheme is different in form and nature to a differential rent scheme, which applies a means test to every tenant.

Mr. Lagden: Mr. Lagden rose——

Mr. Silverman: I cannot go on arguing this.

Mr. Lagden: I have only one sentence. How would the hon. Gentleman get this information if he does not send out some form of inquiry to discover the means and ability of a tenant to pay?

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman a lesson in elementary housing principles. Let him find out how rebate schemes work and I think he will find that it is done quite simply, without a general inquisition. The decision about the schemes should be left to the local authority. It is a democratically elected authority, and its electors can

turn it out if they do not like its policy. Why should the Minister and Whitehall tell it everything which it should do? Why should they dictate its rent policy? Why should they dictate its points policy as one hon. Member suggested? Leave this to the local authority which knows what is best in its own area and what will be tolerated. If it wants a differential rent scheme let it have it, notwithstanding the financial burden which it would impose and the burden which it would impose upon the housing management scheme.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about a means test for municipal tenants because municipal tenants are receiving subsidies to which they are not entitled. What has been happening to owner-occupiers? I am not objecting to owner-occupiers receiving subsidies, but I have made a rough calculation of what they receive by way of subsidies. It costs the Exchequer £80 million to £100 million in tax relief for owner-occupiers. There is no means test. The wealthiest owner-occupier, the villa dweller, gets the same benefit. I said that there is no means test. Perhaps I am wrong, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, quite correctly, that there is a means test the wrong way round; the poorer person not paying Income Tax does not get the relief because he has no Income Tax to get the relief on.
The abatement of Schedule A was a form of tax relief. I do not object to this form of assistance to the owner-occupier. But there is no means test. The wealthiest tenant gets it as well. Take standard improvement grants which are given to owner-occupiers. I approve of them entirely. They are a very good thing. Both parties agree about them. But the owner or landlord does not undergo a means test in order to get them.
I calculate that the total amount of public money given in subsidy to owner-occupiers under these headings is about double the amount given in municipal subsidies. I do not object to these subsidies. It is a very good thing that public money should be used and that there should be an abatement of tax to assist people to live in houses which they can afford. But why do people say that there should be a means test only for municipal tenants and differential rents only for


municipal tenants? I think that that is quite wrong.
Some tenants are doing quite well, but they are not among the people who are wanting houses. I do not believe that there is among tenants who in the past few years have applied for and obtained houses a large element of affluence. If they were affluent and could afford to buy an owner-occupied house they would not have lived for many years in conditions of misery. Generally, the person who can afford owner-occupation has a wife who is working and perhaps one child only. People even in Birmingham, where, for the most part, reasonably high wages are paid, cannot afford it.
I repudiate entirely the idea that people who are on the register and who are being given houses do not need the subsidy. They do. It is true that among the older tenants there is, perhaps, a short period of affluence. When the tenant obtained the house he may have had a number of small children and later the children have grown up and are bringing money into the house. Therefore, for a short time before the children leave and establish their own homes there is a period of affluence. That is no reason for carrying out a means test.
I welcome the Bill because it helps local authorities, ratepayers, tenants and the homeless. There are, however, some points which I should like to put to the Minister. The question of time has been mentioned. If the Minister can assist in bringing forward the date when these financial reliefs operate, the hard-pressed local authorities will be very grateful.
Secondly, there is the question of multistorey flats. This is, perhaps, the only point on which I have some agreement with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. But my authority has not found that it is as cheap to build high flats as it is to build flats of up to six storeys. The non-traditional methods are still experimental in some cases. The results are not always very satisfactory. My own local authority doubts whether it will be possible even with advanced industrial methods to bring down the cost of building. It is pointed out that if by building a 20-storey block of flats the high-storey subsidy will be lost, a very

large part of the subsidy will be taken away from the local authority.
The question of land acquisition is another point which my own local authority has mentioned. The amount of money which is provided for an expensive site is given only when a site costs £20,000 an acre. If an authority buys a larger area of land at, say, £10,000 an acre which costs much more than £20,000 in total, Clause 11 does not apply. I hope that this is a matter that can be attended to by my right hon. Friend.
Those are some of the points I wanted to ask. I had a number of other queries, but time is getting short and others of my colleagues want to speak. I hope, however, that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend the Minister to deal with the queries which I have raised. Notwithstanding that I have raised them, I repeat that it is a good Bill and I hope that the House will support it.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his opening speech. The hon. Gentleman went a long way towards answering some of the questions which had arisen in my mind when I read the Bill. Consequently, he will be relieved to know that he has at least shortened my speech.
The test which has to be applied to the Bill is, first, whether it is acceptable to and welcomed by local authorities. As far as I can judge. it is. I believe that it will go a considerable way towards helping them in the very real problems that they have faced, particularly during the last 12 months, in the provision of houses for tenants who need to rent them. For that reason if for no other, I have no hesitation in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
There is no doubt whatever, as every hon. Member is aware, that the greatest source of human suffering and misery in the country today is bad housing conditions. I have seen it in my own constituency. I do not suppose that there is any hon. Member, on either side. who has not seen it at some level in his or her constituency also. Therefore, any measure, even if it has certain shortcomings, even if it falls short of the


promises that were made at the time of the General Election by the party opposite, even if it does not give the incentives that we would like in the direction of owner-occupation, must, if it assists in the provision of additional housing and is a step towards slum clearance, receive the support of all sides of the House.
The points of disagreement can, in the main, be dealt with in Committee. There are three matters on which I should like to touch briefly. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) raised a real and serious issue regarding the undertakings which have been made by local authorities and the contracts which have been let but which will not benefit as a result of the scheme. I hope that there is still time for the Minister to reconsider this complaint and whether means cannot be found of assisting local authorities which may bitterly regret the action they have taken in letting contracts without knowing that the benefit of the Bill would be coming to them within a comparatively short time.
My second point concerns the doubts raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on Clause 12, on which further clarification and satisfaction are needed. If it is not dealt with tonight, I hope that it will be dealt with satisfactorily in Committee.
The third point upon which I feel considerable concern is the need for an assurance that local authority housing rents will be related to the incomes of the occupiers, and to this extent I was glad to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referring to the encouragement which the Government give to rent rebate systems. This is something which, I believe, is the fairest means of ensuring that occupiers of local authority houses are paying rents which are to some extent commensurate with their incomes. We have heard many exaggerated stories about the Rolls Royce outside the council house, but the fact remains that there are many instances of people who are receiving high incomes and are nevertheless paying very low rents. This is deplorable, and I thought that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames made the most telling part of his speech in his references to this aspect of the Bill. It is upon this, I think, that we shall require considerable clarification in Committee.
I turn briefly to the Opposition Amendment. It claims, quite rightly, that the Bill does not assist home ownership. I agree that it does not. It also claims, quite rightly, that it does nothing to reduce the rate of mortgage interest. This is also true. This Bill, however, is not designed for that purpose. It is not an overall housing Bill. It is basically concerned with subsidies to local authorities to encourage them and to enable them to provide housing for rent.
As an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House said a few moments ago, the fact is that the basic housing problem which comes to each of us in our "surgeries" in our constituencies is one which is related to the need to provide houses which can be rented. I know it from people who come to see me and who write to me. It is not because there are not houses to buy; there are
plenty of houses for sale. It is because they cannot rent houses, and because their incomes are such that they have no chance of being able to find the necessary deposits to enable them to buy houses.
Therefore, I am glad that the Minister has tackled this side of the housing problem first; but, in saying that, I hope he will not neglect the other aspects of the problem which are raised in the Opposition Amendment, that he will regard those as having at least an equal priority, and that we shall see further measures during the coming year to meet and overcome the points which are raised in the Opposition Amendment.
In short, we on this bench welcome this Measure. We believe that it will satisfy, to some extent at least, the requirements of many local authorities, that it will encourage them to embark upon further building programmes, that it will go some way towards slum clearance, and that it will give assistance to those people whose housing need is greatest. We have reservations. We hope that those reservations will be carefully considered in Committee, and we hope that Amendments will be introduced to enable this Bill to become a really worthwhile and valuable piece of legislation.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: In the few moments which


remain before the Front Bench spokes. men wish to reply to the debate I want to make one or two brief points. I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) which seemed to me to be relevant to the Bill. I must say that I do not think that I have ever seen an Amendment for the rejection of a Bill so little supported by speeches in debate. The sincerity with which the Opposition have moved their Amendment is exhibited in the amount of support they have got from Members on their own side and in this Chamber—even at this particular moment of time[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are Members on your own side?"] Indeed, so much is this Bill welcomed on this side of the House that, of course, there has not been the same number of Members wishing to intervene. It is hon. Members opposite who are trying to pretend an opposition which really is not there.
If we consider the actual wording of the Amendment we see how utterly ridiculous it is. It suggests that the Government are not utilising to the full the sources for house building that ought to be used, yet the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) entirely justified that. It did not answer at all the fact that through the long 'years of Conservative Government surely every right hon. Gentleman who had office as Minister—and there were a great number of them—must have considered the matter. They took other measures to encourage private building and the private provision of rented accommodation, all of which failed. They did not attempt to do the one thing that they are now saying that the present Administration ought to do in the Bill. It is utter nonsense, and they know it. They know perfectly well that there is no likelihood of a contribution being made in that way.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has shown his willingness to accept that there is a need for owner-occupation and private building, but he is properly insisting that the Bill has to be regarded as one of a series of measures. We welcome the fact that in the Bill we are tackling one of the most urgent issues of all which is clearly to increase the provision of local authority building, following the way in

which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed it to deteriorate over these last years. Every independent investigation proves that it is one of the most urgent crying social problems at the moment, and although we may welcome an increased desire for owner-occupation developing in the future, the urgent problem today is to meet the crying need for rented accommodation within reasonable rental figures.
I want to take up one or two of the points that are made for the rejection of the Bill. It is apparently being said that it should be made mandatory upon local authorities that they have a differential rent scheme of some sort. That is apparently the proposal, and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) spelt it out. I am not quite clear whether his right hon. and hon. Friends really support that. No doubt the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will be able to say whether he wishes the Government to include in the Bill a mandatory provision that local authorities must, as a term of any provision of subsidy at the proposed rate, operate a differential rent system.
I am opposed to a mandatory scheme of that sort. I am in favour of local authorities operating rent rebate schemes, which are a very different matter where the onus is put upon the tenant whether he applies for the rebate. That makes sense, but I say that it is a matter for local determination, because conditions vary greatly. There are some areas where the tenants' incomes are at such a relatively low level generally that it is simply not worth while undertaking a scheme of that sort, and therefore it is right that local authorities should be able to decide for themselves. Many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen complain bitterly that too much is being taken out of the hands of local authorities, but they cannot have it both ways. If it is felt that local authorities ought to be allowed a certain amount of local option, this is a matter which they are peculiarly fitted to decide.
There has been some argument about the importance of high rise building, and there are no doubt differing views. There has been a good deal of investigation recently, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is taking note of it. It challenges the idea that either in economic terms or in social terms one is doing the right


thing to proliferate the number of high rise buildings that we are getting today, even in our biggest cities. It is very doubtful whether we are getting the economic and social advantages that many people thought that we would get. In addition, the problem has been obscured by the level of subsidy in the past.
I think that my right hon. Friend is taking the right line in limiting the extra subsidy to high rise building over the six-storey level. I think that he is right also to warn authorities that he will examine very carefully proposals for high rise building. I am sure that they are really needed in extreme cases, where we all admit that there is a case for them, but high rise building seems to be becoming almost a habit with some local authorities, and I am sure it is right that we should call a halt and examine the situation carefully to see whether we can get relatively high densities in other ways which are more satisfactory for families and social needs. I am sure that the Bill is welcomed by local authorities all over the country, and especially by those who are at last getting some hope of accommodation of a decent sort, and, I hope, of a decent quality, which they have been denied in the past.

9.1 p.m

Mr. Graham Page: The debate on the Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill must be a debate which to a great extent deals with figures—the amount of each subsidy, the total subsidy to be granted, the number of houses to be built. and so on—but in this debate hon. Members have not let the House forget the human problems behind these figures, we can perhaps only guess at the full measure of these human problems.
The White Paper, Cmnd. 2838, gives us certain figures. It says that 700,000 houses are needed to overcome shortages and provide a margin for mobility, and that 150,000 houses a year are needed to keep up with new households being formed in the rising population. That was as much as half the annual figure which a few years ago both parties thought was an adequate building programme. I do not think that those figures are exaggerated in any way. This is the problem before us. Every hon. Member knows the state of the housing waiting list in his own constituency, and the human problems in it. He knows that list

not only as names and numbers, but probably knows many of the families and the individuals on it who are in desperate need of homes. When something goes wrong and a local authority cannot help, when the wives and children are packed off to Part III accommodation and the husbands have to fend for themselves, one gets the heartrending situations with which we as Members have to contend.
I do not want to be over-dramatic, or to introduce pathos into this, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to believe that everywhere in the House, and certainly on this side of it, there is a determination to try to solve this housing problem. I think that this was shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) when he quoted the figure of 4¼ million houses built during the term of Conservative Governments.
I ask the Government to believe that our opposition to the Bill is based not on any desire to deny help to local authorities in meeting the demands of those needing homes, but on the conviction that the Government are going the wrong way to work about it. The Bill will not meet those demands, but will rather hinder the objectives by concentrating the available resources on the slowest and most uneconomical measure of housebuilding, and by that means depriving the other agencies of the labour, material, and resources for building quickly and economically. A fair share of the available money would produce more houses more quickly more efficiently, and if the help has to be limited to a certain figure allowed to the right hon. Gentleman by the Treasury, it should be spread over other agencies, rather than merely being given to local authorities.
Government policy is stated in paragraph 27 of the White Paper, which says:
Final responsibility for settling both the total programme and its broad division into constituent parts must be the Government's. But the carrying through of the programme depends on the local authorities, the construction industries and the financial agencies, notably the building societies; and the programme will be achieved only if all"—
I stress the word "all"—
concerned understand what is wanted and work within the plan".


I assume that they have to understand that this Bill is what is wanted, and that one partner gets all the money and the others do not get paid at all. The Minister seems a little astonished at this, but what he is saying to the private enterprise builder who is providing accommodation for owner-occupation—and I can assure him that some are also still providing houses to let—is, "Sorry, chums, you have had it".
Paragraph 30 of the White Paper says:
The Government strongly support the movement towards extended owner-occupation.… As soon as the country's economic situation allows they will publish their plans for bringing owner-occupation within the reach of more families.
They will "publish their plans"; they will not even take action about it. This is shirking their duty; it is running away from both the problem and the policies. The Bill does not provide for present needs, except possibly in the first two lines of the Long Title, which describes it as a Bill
to make further provision for the giving of financial assistance towards the provision of dwellings".
I wish that the Minister had put a full stop there, and had gone on to do just that—to give financial assistance towards the provision of dwellings.

Mr. Crossman: I am not clear what the hon. Member's argument is. Is his criticism that we should have distributed subsidies fairly between public sector houses to let and builders building to let, or between public sector houses to let and builders building for sale? Does he want subsidies for the whole lot?

Mr. Page: I shall deal with that point in the course of my argument. The case for building houses to let by private enterprise has been argued across the Floor of the House on many occasions. I am saying that the Minister should divide the available money between assistance to local authorities and assistance to owner-occupiers. I shall refer to that in specific terms shortly. What the Minister has done is to restrict the provisions of the Bill to a hand-out of increased subsidies to local authorities, with some lavishness for those that plead poverty, with no help for those whom he promised to help, namely, the owner-occupiers.
I will take two examples from the Bill. In Clause 2 the Minister takes power to prescribe the rate of interest on which the subsidy depends. He can do this by a stroke of the pen after consultation with the recipient authorities, but not after consultation with this House. He consults local authorities, makes an order, slaps it on the Table of the House, and leaves it to the negative procedure. This is not the way to treat the House when millions of pounds of public money are being distributed.
Clause 5 deals with subsidies for urgent needs and for the transfer of industry, and there is complete freedom for the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer—up to the £30 subsidy—to decide what sort of subsidies he is going to give, and on what basis. I thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) dealt with this point very thoroughly. He said that he did not know on what basis Liverpool might receive the special subsidy under Clause 5. As the Bill stands, nobody knows, and the Minister need not bring his decision before the House or tell the House how he arrived at his decision.
These are not just Committee points. They show the Minister's attitude of mind in favouring the council house medium for house building. As it were, he has booked his tickets for his honeymoon with the local authorities on these subsidies and it seems that he could not care less about anyone else, even about Parliament.
I still do not know what these tickets will cost. The White Paper gives some figures on page 19 which lead us to understand that for dwellings up to three storeys—I presume that this means one house and not three flats in one house—the subsidy may average £64 and for dwellings over three storeys, £81. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned £90 in respect of subsidies for houses at Kingston-on-Thames. He gave some clue of what this meant in figures when he said that 190,000 council houses are in the course of construction and if they were given the subsidy it would cost £11 million a year for the subsidies. It seems to me that on that basis the Financial Memorandum is placing the total very much too low. I suspect that the results will prove to be much larger than the figures in the Financial Memorandum.
May I put this question, and answer it? Why is it necessary to prime the pump of local authority building to this extent? Why is it necessary to prime all local authority building to this extent? This is a most important point; under the Bill all will get the basic subsidy and there is no discrimination in favour of those who are hardest hit over housing. We are told that the basic subsidy may be £60, £80 or £90 a dwelling. The wealthy authorities, those which have no real housing problems, can obtain this subsidy, instead of the Government using the available money to help those authorities with the biggest housing problem. This throws overboard the Conservative Government's scheme, which was a proper discrimination in the granting of the basic subsidy.
I refer again to what the hon. Member for Walton said, because I know the district of which he was speaking. He made an extremely good case for selective subsidies in favour of areas such as Liverpool. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said that we aught to ensure that we centred our efforts on the areas most needing help. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] But this is not done in the Bill. It is left to the Minister without any definite statement of how he will administer Clause 5.
I say definitely that had we had the conduct of the Bill we should frankly and openly have been selective in favour of those local authorities with the greatest problems, and we should not have left it to whether the Minister "is of the opinion "—we should not have left it to his gracious generosity. May I put a question to the Minister which I hope he will he able to answer when he concludes the debate: on what principle will he use his discretion in making grants under that Clause? The House should know, and I am glad that he nods his head to indicate that he will be able to tell us.

Mr. Heffer: I am intrigued by this point. Could the hon. Member tell the House why for so many years the Conservative Government did not carry out the policy which he is now suggesting ought to be carried out? Now that we have a Labour Government, something is being done. Will he explain that point?

Mr. Page: The hon. Member forgets the history of Conservative policy on housing subsidies. It has always been our policy to direct those subsidies where they were most needed. In 1952, when it was necessary to build houses everywhere and anywhere, we confirmed the General Needs Grant. In 1956, when it was necessary to advance slum clearance, we directed the grant to the replacement of slum clearance houses. In 1961, when it was obvious that regional selection was required, we directed it regionally to those areas where it was most needed.
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary reminded us, the previous Minister of Housing set up a working party to advise him on the next Bill—this Bill, in fact. The working party reported in September, 1964, soon after which the Conservative Minister was unable to carry out the Report. We should have weighted this Bill in favour of the hardest-hit areas. It would also have been weighted in favour of local authorities who had adopted rent schemes. There has been some question today as to what is meant by a rent scheme or a differential scheme. My interpretation of it is that one should give the subsidy only to an authority which charged proper rents and made proper rebates, where necessary, from those rents—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is a proper rent?"]
What is a proper rent? It is a regulated rent. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there are regulated rents for private dwellings, let us have them for local authority dwellings too. I am saying exactly what is said by the Minister in paragraph 40 of the White Paper:
Provision of more council houses must be accompanied by policies for allocating tenancies and for determining rents which ensure that the extra houses fulfil the social purpose for which the subsidies are provided.
I would give the subsidies only on condition that the local authorities made that provision by approved schemes—[An HON. MEMBER: "HOW? Would write it into the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment about it. When the Parliamentary Secretary was interrupted on this earlier, he said that he would make a great oration about it at the end of his speech, but he forgot to do so. He said not a word about it—

Mr. Crossman: Leave it to me.

Mr. Page: We can leave it to the Minister. I will give him time for it.
If this party had the conduct of the Bill, the subsidies would have been conditional on the recipient authority having an approved rent scheme. If hon. Members say, "Why was this not done when the Conservative Government were in office?", my answer is that we tried persuasion over many years. It has now proved not to have worked, and this provision should be written into the Bill.
Incidentally, if this were done, it would relieve the rent subsidy for council houses, which has run at between £20 million and £30 million for the whole country. If the Minister professes to be so concerned about reducing the burden of rates, here is one substantial way of doing so. The proper use of subsidised council houses does not depend only on a proper rent.
Several hon. Members have mentioned those who occupy council houses and who do not seem to deserve to have the benefit of the subsidy. Normally, councils' points schemes do not give any points for low incomes. Those who come to the top of the housing waiting list have certain residential qualifications, relating to overcrowding and number of children and so on, but by the time they reach the top of the list, they may well be able to buy their own house.
In areas where houses are available, I should have thought that any rent scheme should include a provision for refusing accommodation to such people. I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) that I am not advocating chucking out existing tenants. What I am advocating is that we should not admit into council houses those people who have the means —who are well enough off—to buy their own houses.
What will the Minister do in the case of local authorities which do not apply rent schemes? Will he let them take the subsidy and thumb their noses at him? He is, after all, dispensing public money and, as the White Paper states, it should be used to relieve those with the greatest social need. How will he see that it is so used? We are entitled to know what is in his mind in enforcing this.
These are some constructive proposals about subsidies to local authorities. They are that the basic subsidy should be selective—that it is not just a supplementary subsidy—that it should be given conditionally upon an approved rent scheme continuing the provision of proper rents, and continuing provision for turning down fresh applicants who are well enough off to fend for themselves——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough) rose——

Mr. Page: I should like to complete my argument. The Minister should have gone further. That brings me to the words in the Motion:
… the … Bill … does nothing to help the prospective home buyer or to redeem the Government's pledge of lower rates on mortgage interest …

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I intervene because I am not sure that my hon. Friend carries the whole House with him on the last point. When discussing the question of taking incomes into account, I think that we would agree with that proposal, provided it was made sure that a person with such an income has sufficient to pay the deposit to become a house purchaser. If my hon. Friend is saying that there should be some scheme for turning the subsidy into means of helping such people to make up the deposit, I would be with him.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has anticipated my argument. I was coming to that point. If £90 million is available, it should not all go to local authorities. Part of it should go to help prospective home owners, and it is not true to say that this would be of no help to those who are at present on local authority waiting lists. If we could take prospective owner-occupiers off the lists and help those with small means to buy their own houses, we would not only save the subsidy—perhaps of £90 per year for 60 years, or whatever it might be—but would save the rate subsidy as well in many areas.
Having put that proposal forward, some hon. Gentlemen opposite may be tempted to ask, "Why was it not done to help prospective owner-occupiers during the last 13 years "? They should remember that during the last 13 years owner-occupation increased from 31 per cent. to 47 per cent. Perhaps that was as much as the country and the economy


could digest during that time. Now, however, we can encourage more home ownership.
There is certainly a good case for helping prospective home owners to purchase and for helping them to pay the mortgage interest. Helping them to purchase does not necessarily mean a 100 per cent. advance for a mortgage. It is right that a person should save to buy a home, but I see no reason why, this money being available for subsidies to local authorities, the Government should not show their approval of those who save to buy their own homes by adding to those savings. It might be £25 to every £100 saved. Whatever it is, it would be a form of assisting those who say to make up the deposit on buying a home.
Has the Minister considered helping prospective home owners by some such grant in aid of the deposit to purchase? A person with a low income, helped to purchase a house in this way—being in all probability a non-taxpayer—could be granted, without great expense to the Exchequer, an allowance of a percentage of his mortgage interest, similar to the tax concession to the mortgagor who is a taxpayer. Has the Minister considered that sort of assistance to the home owners?
If one looks, finally, at the principle of the Bill, one sees that the basic subsidy is to be based on interest rates. There may be an argument for some supplementary subsidy based on interest rates, but not the basic subsidy, because this Bill is not worth twopence to local authorities and to those who are waiting on their housing lists, in relation to future house building, unless interest rates remain high. Do the Government believe that interest rates will remain high if the party opposite remains in power? If not, this Bill will not only be a letdown to prospective home purchasers but a confidence trick on the prospective council tenant. We can only assume that interest rates will remain high, otherwise the Bill is useless to the local authorities.
As we have set out in our Amendment, we wanted to see in this Bill a positive policy to use all agencies for the building of houses, to help the prospective home buyer and to ensure that the subsidies go to those most in need. If one reads his White Paper, one sees that the

Minister could, in fact, accept our Motion. It states what he professes he wants to do. If he does not accept it, we must divide the House.

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): This has been for me a very enjoyable debate, if only because the speeches have shown a very clear-cut distinction in the attitude of the two sides. Sometimes we have some blurred edges, but in this debate the difference in the attitude shown in the speeches of Opposition Members and in those of my hon. Friends and of Members of the Liberal Party has been even clearer than it was in our debates on the Rent Bill.
Every speech from this side has welcomed the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friends have welcomed it with conviction as a Measure that genuinely and for the first time for many years creates the possibilities for an enormous surge forward in council building, and for a real and rapid attack on the problem of clearing the slums and curing overcrowding in our great conurbations. There is a real feeling on this side that this Bill provides the financial basis upon which local authorities can do what many of them have wanted to do for years, but which some had almost begun to doubt whether it was possible to do.
Since the publication of the White Paper they have known that there is now no excuse. Where the need is proven, any local authority will be able to have capacity building—to build all the houses it can in the time immediately ahead—because it is clear that the number of rented houses we need in the great conurbations is far beyond our capacity to build in, at least, the next five years, if not the next ten years. We have all felt—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatters-ley), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), among others, that this Bill actually does this.
What has been the Conservative reaction? Hon. Members opposite will not, of course, vote against the 13i11. They have only tabled a reasoned Amendment, because they are moving gradually into permanent opposition. They say,


"It is dangerous to vote against such a Bill as this, so we will concoct an Amendment which says that this Bill, dealing with public sector housing subsidies, does not deal with mortgages for the private owner. We will find a reason for dividing the House because the Bill does not deal with the whole of housing policy." Well, they are advancing.
I was pleased by the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—it was more precise than that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. BoydCarpenter)—when he came out with a series of nice policies. In Opposition, I was responsible for formulating policies, so I can warn the hon. Gentleman, "Do not be too precise. You were close to dangerous commitments which will serve you ill when the elections come."

Mr. Graham Page: If the right hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that it is precise enough but that it gives a good deal of elbow room.

Mr. Crossman: A lawyer's policy. I will try to sharpen the precision by dealing with the first basic difference between the Conservative Opposition and this side of the House. The first basic difference—it is a serious one and it is fundamental—is that the Opposition still purport to believe that private enterprise and the private landlord have an important part to play in building new houses to rent at moderate rents which working class people can afford. They plead Milner Holland and they plead everything else. What they cannot plead is their own record. They had 13 years in which to give the private landlord the inducement to build new houses. They had thirteen years and six Conservative Ministers of Housing, all of whom were wedded to the notion that there was a rôle for private enterprise. If there were a rôle, I would not say them nay. If there was a possibility of getting houses built quickly in this way, getting them built well, getting them built at rents which could be afforded, I would not ideologically say nay.
But I can read. The Opposition love their Milner Holland, but on page 39 Milner Holland gives a statement of fact, not a statement of desire:

We obtained no evidence that any private landlord was building flats or houses to let at net rents below £400 per annum. We did, however, obtain evidence from one company who intended to redevelop land in West London by building shops and residential flats. However they intended to sell the flats to the local authority at cost and obtain a return on their investment from the shops alone.

Sir E. Errington: Sir E. Errington rose——

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I may be allowed to come to the point first. I have tried to get evidence from other parts, outside London, to show that private enterprise and private landlords are desirous or anxious to build for profit and to let at profit at rents which can be afforded below this level. I have not the evidence.

Sir E. Errington: Sir E. Errington rose——

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly respect, because he knows a lot about this, can correct me, I will gladly give way.

Sir E. Errington: I want to draw the Minister's attention to the position in Germany. Private enterprise is going ahead. Over one million more houses have been built since the war. That is private enterprise.

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention has answered itself, if we are to go back to pre-war periods. We must be serious about this. Since the war, with 13 years of a Government pledged and wedded to giving private enterprise every possible chance of building for profit and also at moderate rents, no houses were built. Therefore, a sane, sensible, person says that if we must have houses of that kind, we must have them without profit. This means that only local authorities or housing associations can build them, because nobody else can build them, without subsidy.
If the suggestion is that we should take our subsidies here and divide them between the local authorities and the housing associations who will get the subsidy and give a fair whack to private enterprise, I reply: what is the good of setting up a new lot of privately owned houses and then having to impose rent regulation on them after that? What is the sense in doing that? It makes no sense whatsoever, but it is the only sense which I can make out of the long section of the


speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames alleging that I had disregarded one important possibility which is available for me for building houses for rent, which is what the Bill is about.
I am aware that there is a rôle for the private landlord. I have emphasised it time after time. The rôle for the private landlord is in the old houses which he already owns. I am aware of the enormous importance of enabling those old houses to be maintained and improved. Every local authority sees the need today, not only to build new houses, but to keep the semi-blighted areas from being blighted. to save the twilight areas, to work with private enterprise to try to get those houses preserved. This business of area improvement is, I agree, of enormous importance, and there the private landlord has a key job. There, if he is a genuine and honest landlord who does his job and maintains and improves his houses, he will have a better chance under our Rent Act than under the Tory Rent Act of getting a return on his money. This I believe in. On the other hand, I face facts, and one fact is that the small private landlord sells at the first opportunity.
Wherever one turns, in Lancaster where there has been a study, in Rochdale where there has been a special Ministry study, or anywhere else, every objective observer records that the transfer from landlordism to owner-occupation is continuing with enormous speed. The old landlords simply see nothing in it, and a small landlord with two or three houses will get out at the first opportunity—often leaving the sitting tenant with a bad debt on his hands. But that is the position. The movement from the old owners to owner-occupation is proceeding.
Something else is happening as well. A tendency is growing for the private landlord also to sell out in great blocks. We read in The Times today that the Haringey Council has approved the purchase of a huge area of working-class housing for £2 million. I welcome this. Incidentally, Haringey was lucky in getting so far, because the Chancellor would have caught it fairly soon. I warn local authorities that they will not necessarily be allowed to do this for a while, but that purchase was initiated some time ago. This kind of passage into the hands of the

local authority or into owner-occupation from the private landlord will be a characteristic we shall see spreading through our cities, and we shall have to deal with it. But private landlords have a rôle to play in collaboration with the local authorities, and provided that they play the game honestly, we shall not object. We shall fix fair rents, and if, under those conditions, they can still make it pay, well and good; otherwise they will sell out and, as I say, their houses will go to owner-occupation or municipal control.
The second question put to me by the Opposition related specifically to the form of the Bill. They asked.: what is the financial case for such wasteful, indiscriminate, lavish subsidies? Those were the sort of terms used. I think that it was the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), who attends for the speeches but not for the reply, who argued that we had made out no kind of case on financial ground for subsidies on this scale. Between now and 1961, when the subsidies were last laid down by my predecessor, the cost of house building has risen by 47 per cent. and this has meant that a local authority, if the State subsidy was not increased, had to face a rate subsidy or raise its rents higher and higher.
Hon. Members opposite talk as though council rents are not going up. I know very well that they are, and they are going up because of the cost of house building, part of which, I agree, is represented by high interest rates. I shall not go into detail, but I should have thought that at least the Front Bench opposite would agree that if one wants more council housing, as I do, on a big scale, and if one is to give a financial basis for it, the costs involved are such that one must insulate councils from the uncertainties of interest rates. What we have done here is not what the Economist suggested, that is, giving local authorities an incentive to build in times when the Chancellor does not want them to, but we have removed any disincentive from building at any time. It will enable them to go on building steadily year after year in the way which a Government who want housing to have top priority wish them to do. We say that, whatever else happens, we will not have the housing programme upset this time. It will go on. We shall be able to afford


this programme. We have calculated it carefully. We have worked out the cost. This is something which we shall do and do properly in this way.
The hon. Member for Crosby is quite right to point out that it is a big subsidy. It is a big subsidy now because interest rates are high. If our policies are successful, if the Chancellor has his way, and interest rates sink, the subsidy value will sink. It was said that the local authorities were unhappy about it, but the fact is that local authorities understand the importance of lower interest rates very well. They will reduce housing costs. What the local authorities want to do is to build houses. If they can build them without so much State subsidy, they will do so and will tend to sacrifice the subsidy to some extent for the interest rate.
Of course I have talked to the treasurers about this. Of course they made to me the simple point that if the Chancellor has astonishing success and interest rates sink tremendously I must re-think the subsidies, and naturally one agrees with that proviso.

Mr. Graham Page: But the Bill destroys all other subsidies and relies on a basic subsidy. What is the right hon. Gentleman to do about this?

Mr. Crossman: It does not destroy all other subsidies. It replaces them for new housing.
This is a very big subsidy and it requires severe allocation. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that, with a subsidy on this scale, the Minister must be prepared to say what parts of the country have not a clear demand for council housing and what parts do need it.
Because I want to enable Liverpool, Manchester and London to do a job of work, I am prepared to take on myself the unpopularity of saying that I shall give them enough, even though that means that I shall have to say to certain places in the South, the South-West and the South-East, "Sorry. You may want to build, but will you demonstrate that you have a slum clearance problem, that your people really prefer council houses to owner-occupation, which they may or may not be getting in your area;

you will have to prove the need." On the other hand, 165 local authorities in the great conurbations without question have a crisis and will not have to prove need. They will merely have to prove their ability to build more and more houses.
That is the theory of the Bill and the White Paper taken together. The Bill enables the Minister to provide the financial basis to the local authorities where the need is great. It also gives him power to ration the other authorities where the need is not so great—and, frankly, however unpopular and difficult to do, this is the only way to get a move on without wasting a great deal of money.

Mr. Bessell: Do I take it from that that development districts in the South-West will not receive priority, even though it would mean, if they were given such assistance, spreading the population and assisting their development?

Mr. Crossman: Development areas will be given priority throughout the country. The regional principle has been established. For instance, it will mean that areas closer to my constituency will be in difficulties because, in the prosperous Midlands, we are already attracting too much industry. We shall have to say, "Of course Birmingham has to have housing, for it has 40,000 slums and we must get rid of them. But there are other places in the Midlands where so much council building is not so necessary."
That is why, in the White Paper, I required local authorities to make an objective assessment of their housing needs. Some of them were a little surprised when I asked them to assess how many of their people want to be owner-occupiers and how many need council housing. I want them to make land available for owner occupation and not hog it for council houses if they do not need council houses, because their job it to provide houses that are needed—and the houses that are needed are those which, by and large, families want.
All this is written in the White Paper but it is not mentioned by the Tory Party because it does not want to believe that the Government are prepared to say that, while we want council houses for those who need them, we are also in favour of owner occupation where it is wanted and we are prepared to ask the local


authorities to assess the desire for owner occupation in their areas. In any case, no local authority wants to build council houses gratuitously and therefore add to the problems of its housing revenue in the way that such building would.
In addition to the basic subsidy, there will be special subsidies. What has not been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that we are providing a special subsidy to encourage mobility of labour under Clause 5(2), dealing with the transfer of workers. This goes far wider than the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about the coal industry, though it is true that the coal industry will help me in providing houses for the movement of several thousand mining families into the Midlands. I am hoping that this section will be used in places such as Cornwall, where I have read that the china clay industry desperately needs a special kind of worker. We will provide the housing if that helps to get the workers needed into development areas of special kinds. This is what Section 5(2) is for.
It was suggested by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that we were speaking from inadequate information when we suggested that a subsidy which went up for each floor to 16 floors was a terrible waste of money. We are in a curious situation; we are accused of being extravagant, rather than of saving money, yet he is telling us to waste money. He has already been replied to, in his absence, I think, by several of my hon. Friends who know the Midlands very well. I can tell him that I have been round the country a good deal and found that one of the results of the old subsidy system with the basic £24, plus this very lavish floor by floor high-rise subsidy, was that what people had said about it was quite true. People were building high-rise homes just for the fun of it, just for the architect's kudos, because the higher one built the more money one got from the Government. It is not sociologically proved that everyone likes to live in high-rise homes. There is a lot of evidence that a lot of people dislike being forbidden not only cats and dogs but children. While it is very often essential that people who live in great conurbations should live high-rise, there is no reason

to put a 16-storey building plump in the middle of the suburbs of a small provincial town just because an architect felt it would be better with a high-rise building. It is getting a bit too American for my taste.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not what the right hon. Gentleman has said in another context apply here? If a local authority wishes to build too high unnecessarily, and, broadly speaking, I agree with him that outside the central areas it is unnecessary, he can control this by loan sanction, without depriving those authorities which really need it.

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman has not got to the exceptional condition. What I have done is greatly to improve the expensive site subsidy. I will give him a concrete example. Take the Marylebone railway yard. This has been bought by the Westminster Council, of which I am a good ratepayer, for the sum of £132,000 an acre, because otherwise there will be no housing there at all. There would only be luxury offices or luxury flats. One needs a very considerable subsidy to enable one to build on that expensive site. But when one looks at the actual storeys and at their price as they go up, one will simply find that owing to modern technological advance in system building it simply is not true that beyond the sixth floor there is any considerable rise in cost.
Having discussed this with the local authorities, including the London authorities, we came to the conclusion that by cutting off the incentives to build high over the sixth floor and sharply increasing the expensive site subsidy over £50,000, we were dealing with the important area, where otherwise one cannot get any housing done at all. Although it was an expensive thing and although I thought a lot about it before I put it to the Chancellor, I still felt that in the Central London area, Manchester or Liverpool, there is a case for having housing there for working-class people because their need is there. The great metropolis needs people who are electricians, needs char-ladies who will do the cleaning work in the office. It needs people of this kind and we have to build the houses for them,


even if we have to have a very expensive social service in order to do it.
So much for the special subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman went on to make a great fuss about direct labour and said that this was a piece of wild extravagance, that I had obliterated something that his right hon. Friends had laid down, namely, a rule that every third contract had to be given out to tender in order to test the efficiency of a direct labour department. It is not beyond the wit of man to make the third tender for 20 houses. The real trouble about this rule was that it did not prevent the bad man from evading it, and, much more important, those who were going in for system building, which requires negotiated agreements without tenders, were effectively prevented from doing so.
The contribution of the direct labour departments to system building has been crucial. The breakthrough was made at Sheffield and it was done only with the greatest difficulty because of this rule. Therefore, I thought that a rule which did not prevent the wicked from being wicked but merely prevented the efficient from being more efficient was silly, and that the way to make direct labour departments efficient was to cost them properly, and to insist that they were costed properly, and to ensure that the housing section is separated from the repair section, and so on. That is what I propose to do, because I am keen on direct labour and keen to make it more efficient. It can be, and should be tested to prove its efficiency.
I come to the main points of criticism of the Opposition. They are interesting for a party which believes in freedom and in setting the people free from Socialist control. It is said that Conservative controls should be introduced to control the councils. I am told that we have to introduce mandatory powers to control council allocations, mandatory powers on the quality of houses and mandatory powers to order councils to set their rent policies. These are being laid down by the party of freedom as prerequisites. I suspect that they must dislike councils a great deal to subject them to such Socialist controls!
The difference between us is that we just do not think that it is the right way

to handle the matter. I had better qualify that. There is an area in which I am prepared to be mandatory, and that is in the quality of building. We shall expect local authorities to build houses to Parker Morris standards when the present contracts have run out. We must give them time. Loan sanctions will be much more easily obtained if the houses are built to Parker Morris standards. If I am told that this means fewer houses, of course it does. If we build better houses, that takes more energy. Harold Macmillan could build 300,000 houses by using the same number of bricks as it would take to build 200,000. I do not want to do that.
I suggest, therefore, that we should deny ourselves that targeteering passion for a figure and say to local authorities, "If we give you much better subsidies, part of the subsidy on each house is to be used to make the house worthy of being lived in in 40 years' time—to give it larger floor space, modern insulation, modern heating and modern finish, to set private enterprise in the private enterprise housing estate a standard to which it can aspire in 10 years". That is what we believe in doing. We believe in using subsidies for this very purpose—to insist on quality in council building.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) asked me whether I was prepared to intervene as a Minister and to compel councils, in their rent policy, to allocate their houses to those who needed them most. I think that it was suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby that I might even say that only poor people should go into council houses and that there should be a means test. I have thought very carefully about allocation. I have put out what I can to persuade councils that it is scandalous and mean to impose residential qualifications on people who cannot have them—for example, ex-Service men.
It is true that coloured immigrants are being unfairly discriminated against by councils which impose a five-year residential qualification. But I say in all seriousness that that is something which the elected local authority—if we believe in elections at all—must settle with local public opinion for itself. We cannot from London order people to be good; we cannot order them to be angels. We


can create a breathing space, build the houses and say, "I have given you the opportunity to be an angel. Let your living standards be higher than they have been in the past". That is what I shall do. To do more would increase the racial antagonism which we desire to suppress.
I turn now to the question of rents. I was solemnly told that I should have a mandatory authority to say that no local authority should receive a subsidy if its rent rebate scheme was not to my approval. The confidence which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have in my power of direction! I think that I would modestly deny myself this power! I simply say that this is something—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member mean that his party would like to do it themselves?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman was regarding this as a personal compliment. I should hate to deny it to him, but we are very conscious of the fact that he will not be in office long.

Mr. Crossman: I have three things to say about council rents. First, do not let us underestimate the speed at which they have been rising. I have just worked it out and it appears that, roughly speaking, council house rents have risen by 51 per cent. in the last 10 years. That is a fairly steep rise, 51 per cent. with almost annual rises. This has been due to the increased cost of council housing.
There is something else that I should like to say. We have heard a great deal about the unfairness to poor people, and I agree. I want to see rent rebate systems by which people who can afford to pay more pay more than those who cannot. We should not, however, forget the great injustices between one town and another. I have looked to find an extreme example and the two places which I have chosen—I hope that they will not take offence—are Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent.
The average rents of almost identical houses are 46s. 11d. in Portsmouth and

23s. at Stoke-on-Trent. This is not because Stoke-on-Trent is more wicked from the Conservative point of view than Portsmouth. It is because the sum of historic pre-war building in Stoke-on-Trent was fairly large and the amount of pre-war building in Portsmouth was fairly small.
As rents are fixed by the historic value of a house, there is the gravest injustice between one local authority and another, in the sense that if we ask them all to rebuild the impact and the burden upon them varies from authority to authority. What I meant in the White Paper by saying that basic housing finance requires much more consideration was simply this. If hon. Members opposite—they did not say so, they did not have the guts to say it; I do not know what they did say—had said that we should consolidate all subsidies and say to ourselves, "We will pay out all local authorities, budget the whole thing up and then allocate", I would not envy the Minister who did it, but I admit that it would be more just to handle the whole of local government finance in this way and try to even it up. But in the first year of a Labour Government, when my major occupation is to get a system of subsidies which will maximise production of houses in the right places and which wins the good will of the local authorities who have to build houses, it would have been crazy to undertake that kind of drastic reform in that way.
Time allows me to say just one other thing before I conclude. It is, of course, true that the owner-occupier is unjustly treated by the tax law. On the other hand, it is also true that we still pay more per owner-occupier from the Treasury than we do per council house dweller. They are both things that we must deal with.
I conclude by saying this to the Opposition. If they think that we should divide this money between council houses and owner-occupiers, let them wait for our next proposal for owner-occupiers—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—and they will find that we will be announcing it this—Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—when we decide to announce it.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 280.

Division No. 12.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abu, Leo
Floud, Bernard
McCann, J.


Albu, Austen
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall


Alldritt, Walter
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McInnes, James


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bacon, Miss Alice
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Garrow, Alex
McLeavy, Frank


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
MacMillan, Malcolm


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bence, Cyril
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother valley)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Binns, John
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mapp, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marsh, Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hale, Leslie
Mason, Roy


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell, Robert


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mellish, Robert


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Harman, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Heffer, Eric S.
Monslow, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Buchanan, Richard
Homer, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Neal, Harold


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Newens, Stan


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Chapman, Donald
Howie, w.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Hoy, James
Norwood, Christopher


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oakes, Gordon


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
O'Malley, Brian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Orbach, Maurice


Cronin, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Orme, Stanley


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jackson, Colin
Owen, Will


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Padley, Walter


Darling, George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Perry, Ernest G.


Donnelly, Desmond
Kelley, Richard
Popplewell, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, R. E.


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Randall, Harry


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Ledger, Ron
Rankin, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, Edward


English, Michael
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn


Ennals, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ensor, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lubbock, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul B.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William




Rowland, Christopher
Swingler, Stephen
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Sheldon, Robert
Symonds, J. B.
White, Mrs. Elrene


Shinwell, Rl. Hn. E.
Taverne, Dick
Whitlock, William


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Silkin, John (Deptford)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Skeffington, Arthur
Tinn, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Snow, Julian
Varley, Eric G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Warden, Brian (All Saints)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Storehouse, John
Wallace, George
Zilliacus, K.


Stones, William
Warbey, William



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G.R. (Vauxhall)
Watkins, Tudor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. George Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Crawley, Aldan
Hastings, Stephen


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hawkins, Paul


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Crowder, F. P.
Hay, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Curran, Charles
Hendry, Forbes


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Currie, G. B. H.
Higgins, Terence L.


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Atkins, Humphrey
Dance, James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Baker, W. H. K.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hopkins, Alan


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Paul
Hordern, Peter


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hornby, Richard


Barlow, Sir John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Doughty, Charles
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)


Bell, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Berkeley, Humphry
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bitten, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jennings, J. C.


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)


Bingham, R. M.
Errington, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Blaker, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Box, Donald
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Foster, Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kimball, Marcus


Brewis, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gammans, Lady
Kirk, Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gardner, Edward
Kitson, Timothy


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Gibson-Watt, David
Lagden, Godfrey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Lambton, Viscount


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Glover, Sir Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Buxton, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Longbottom, Charles


Campbell, Gordon
Grant, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert


Carlisle, Mark
Grant-Ferris, R.
Loveys, W. H.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Cary, Sir Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Channon, H. P. G.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
MacArthur, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Maddan, W. F. M.


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maginnis, John E.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Sir John


Cordle, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil


Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Costain, A. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.







Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L, C.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Temple, John M.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Miscampbell, Norman
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mitchell, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomeycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Monro, Hector
Ridsdale, Julian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


More, Jasper
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Morgan, W. G.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roots, William
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Murton, Oscar
Royle, Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walder, David (High Peak)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wall, Patrick


Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Sharpies, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Onslow, Cranley
Shepherd, William
Ward, Dame Irene


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Webster, David


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John
Whitelaw, William


Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Soames, Rt.Hn. Christopher
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Peel, John
Stainton, Keith
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)




Wise, A. R.


Percival, Ian
Stanley, Hn. Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Peyton, John
Stodart, Anthony
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Stoddart-Scott, Cot. Sir Malcolm
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woodnutt, Mark


Pitt, Dame Edith
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wylie, N. R.


Pounder, Rafton
Talbot, John E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vounger, Hn. George


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)



Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. Martin McLaren and




Mr. Francis Pym.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Bill be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING SUBSIDIES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Mr. RODERIC BOWEN in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the giving of financial assistance towards the provision of dwellings and to increase the amount of contributions in respect of hostels under section 15 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958, it is expedient to authorize—


(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of subsidies in respect of dwellings, or the sites of dwellings, or in respect of the cost of dwellings, approved by the Minister and provided by

(a) a local authority, or
(b) a development corporation or the Commission for the New Towns, or
(c) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or with the Minister;
(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of advances to local authorities on account of subsidies that may become payable in respect of the sites of dwellings provided by them;
(3) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums in lieu of subsidies which have ceased to be payable on the transfer or letting of any dwellings or other land;
(4) any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the amounts payable under section 15 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958;
(5) any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable by way of Rate-Deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. McColl.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS TO OWNER-OCCUPIERS OF UNFIT HOUSES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert:
to any such order made before 13th December 1970,

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment would he to continue the supplement for all owner-occupiers who brought their houses between 1st September, 1939, and 12th December, 1955, for another five years from 12th December, 1965, to 12th December, 1970. In order that the House should appreciate the significance of the Amendment it would help if I reminded it that owner-occupied houses which come within a slum clearance order fall into four different categories for compensation.
First, there are those owner-occupied houses which were acquired before 1939, which get only site value, those which were acquired between 1939 and 1950, which got market value until 12th December, 1965, when the present Act expired—which is the question that we are arguing about at the moment: those acquired between 1950 and 1955 which under the recently expired Act got market value, and which, under the Bill as it left this House will get at least 15 years' enjoyment before they will fall out of market value compensation, and, finally, those acquired after 1955, which get site value only.
The group which, under the Bill as it left this House, are going out of the protection of the Act, have had at most 26 years' and at least 15 years' enjoyment of the house before it was acquired. The group which are remaining under the provisions of the Bill as it left the House might, under the expired legislation, have had as little as 10 years' enjoyment, but, under the Bill, will be sure of getting 15 years.
I have drawn attention to the importance of this period of enjoyment and have pointed out that under the Bill as it left this House, these houses have had at least 15 years during which the people who acquired them have been able to write off the cost which they paid for them. That is fairly important, but a noble Lord in another place said that this was a quite unacceptable argument, and that the length of occupation had nothing whatsoever to do with the question whether or not the owners should receive market value compensation.
All I can say about that is that it was not the view of the last Government when they introduced their Bill in 1956 and it was not the view of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), my predecessor, who said in the House earlier in this Session that he recognised the sense of the 15-year proposal.
If we depart from the 15-year test, there are no grounds for stopping short of giving all owner-occupiers market value compensation. If we allow the group who have held occupation for at least 15 years to continue their right for another five years, so that in some cases they will be having 30 years enjoyment of the house, there is no point in not giving it to everyone. Many cases in which hardship has been caused and which have had publicity are cases of people who acquired 30 or 40 years ago and who now have to leave their houses.
One of the great difficulties of the Amendment is that it emphasises the rigidity of the distinction between people who are in the Bill and those who are out of it. Under our scheme, on the other hand, the benefit tapers off. Under the Amendment, if one acquired in 1938 one would get nothing, and if one acquired in 1939 one could continue to have protection until 1970. This is a distinction which it is extremely difficult, to justify.
The Amendment has nothing to do with trying to extend the protection to these people. It does not attempt to do that, and to go into great detail arguing about the pros and cons of it would be to go much beyond what we are debating tonight.
I would simply make only some points which came out when we discussed the matter earlier. The difficulty is that in


having a blanket arrangement by which everybody will get full market value we should undoubtedly drive up the cost of slum clearance. Once it had been established that there was a cast-iron undertaking that a local authority acquiring a house would pay market value for it, the unscrupulous vendors who were selling unfit houses would be able to say to the purchaser, "You need not worry. The price may seem high but you will get it back from the local authority because this is the market price".

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member knows that there is a Schedule in the 1957 Act which obliges a valuer to value on the basis of what the house is worth, even given the market value. It it is unfit and worth nothing, then the owner will get nothing for it. If it is worth something, then he will be paid the market value.

Mr. MacColl: It is valued at the price at which it is bought and sold. If there were no problem of scarcity there would be no problem of distinction between the two.
The more that we crystallise these differences between these arbitrary classes, the more difficult we make it to have a look at the more general problem of compensation for compulsory acquisition which, as my right hon. Friend said in the earlier debate, we want to do. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is sniggering again. I thought that he had been cured of his sniggering during the earlier debates this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman addressed us, and no doubt with his usual modesty he gave himself high marks for his wit. I had not the privilege of hearing him.
The third difficulty is one which I know the hon. Member for Crosby feels very strongly about—that the Amendment will make a special distinction for owner-occupiers, which will create a feeling of injustice among small landlords, who, because they have let their houses to tenants, will get nothing.
A final difficulty to which I should draw the House's attention is the position of local authorities. The Association of Municipal Corporations went on record during the time of the last Government

expressing their very great alarm at the proposal to extend the workings of the Bill, because of the resultant burden and the increases in costs of acquisition. I think that they would feel, rightly, some sense of injustice—no one thinks that they are enthusiastic about the Bill—if, when they had accepted it with a shrug of the shoulders, which is a reasonable view of their attitude, they suddenly found, as a result of the activities in another place, that their burden is greatly increased. They could reasonably feel that they had been treated unfairly, because these proposals which were not originally in the Bill, were not favoured by them.
We are not discussing what ought to be the final solution of the very difficult problems created by the development of slum clearance. We are discussing a Lords Amendment which makes a quite arbitrary restoration to the Bill of one group of people who are not now particularly distinct from either the people who went before them or the people who are following after them, the very latest group. That would be a very unwise thing to do——

Mr. Eric Lubbock: If they cannot be distinguished from the persons who acquired their houses between 1950 and 1955, why does not the Minister extend to them the same treatment?

Mr. MacColl: Because that is not what was suggested in another place. I do not think that one should extend it to them because of the difficulties involved. Once one goes beyond filling this gap in the previous legislation—the unfairness to people who acquired during this period but who did not have enjoyment of their property for 15 years—which is what we are doing in the Bill—no line can be drawn. Therefore, it would be unwise of us to extend it in the way proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister made a Freudian slip when at the start of our proceedings he moved that the Lords Amendments should be now "discussed", rather than the more formal "considered". I am sorry that he did not stay to discuss them. I suppose that he has gone to console himself for the fact that in the Division on the Bill we have just finished discussing, even with Liberal support,


his majority fell to 16. He left the Parliamentary Secretary to argue what is, frankly, an unarguable case. I think that the House felt a great deal of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary, the Casabianca of the Treasury Bench, left to argue the unarguable on the orders of his absent chief. The picture of a good man struggling with hopeless adversity arouses sympathy in the hardest-hearted opponent. We feel for the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Government are being needlessly and hopelessly obstinate. We had a very good debate, as hon. Members will remember, on a similar Amendment in Committee in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that, apart from himself, not one hon. Member who spoke from either side—and many did—felt happy about this Clause, limited as it then was, which the Lords Amendment would widen. Not one hon. Member who spoke expressed other than criticism.
10.30 p.m.
Indeed, if I may risk an invidious choice, I thought the most vivid illustration of the manifest injustice that the Government are seeking to achieve by the Bill in the form they want it to leave here came in the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), who described a case where a matter of a few days in respect of two separate dates were going to make all the difference to one of her constituents whose home was being taken for a slum-clearance scheme.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary talked about paying a supplement. I am not sure that that is the right technical term. I doubt whether it is. In any case, we are not concerned with paying a supplement to somebody but with paying to an owner-occupier the market price for the home that is being taken from him so that the local authority may carry out a slum-clearance scheme.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says "It will make slum clearance more expensive," I cannot believe that any local authority is happy at the idea that slum-clearance schemes must be financed at the cost of making people homeless, with only a pittance by way of site value and compensation. I do

not believe that anyone wants to see slum clearance carried out on that basis.
Of course, the essence of the matter is this. On 13th December, the day before yesterday, the provisions of the 1957 Act ran out. Under that Act those who bought houses between 1939 and 1955, if taken up for a slum-clearance scheme, got the market value. From early this year hon. Members have been urging the Government to do something about it and, in the debate on the Queen's Speech, when it was announced—I forget by which Minister—that this was to be done, all of us, whatever our general views of the Government, were glad that they were at least doing one good, if limited, thing. How disappointed and disillusioned we were when it turned out that they were doing nothing for those who bought between 1939 and 1950 and only little for those who bought between 1950 and 1955.
The Lords Amendment would take them all on to 1970, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made very heavy weather of the difficulties that that would cause; that if one was going to deal with these one should deal with others. That is the traditional argument of a Minister in difficulties. I will not say that I have not used it when the rôles were reversed, although I was always conscious of the fact that it was a bad argument.
Here we have a specific and defined class of people, specifically defined by the 1957 Act. They are perfectly clearly ascertainable. There is, therefore, no real force in the argument that because other people may suffer an injustice we should not seek to remove the injustice from this clearly ascertainable class, a class of people who, until the day before yesterday, had protection in these circumstances.
With respect to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, it is absolute nonsense to say that this would make more difficult the review of compensation which his right hon. Friend and he are undertaking. Why would it? If these people are protected until 1970 it would at least enable the Minister to consider this difficult question of compensation more easily, with the knowledge that these people are looked after while that consideration is going on.
It may happen that when they have considered the matter the Government


will bring in more classes or will extend the protection beyond 1970. At least the position would be held until then. I stress, even at this last stage, that that is well worth doing and that, so far from making more difficult would make more easy the general review of compensation which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says the Government are undertaking.
This is not merely the view of this bench or, indeed, in another place only of this party. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is no doubt aware that in another place, when the Amendment was put into the Bill, the noble Lords the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party there joined with the noble Lords of my party to insert the Amendment in the Measure, obviously for reasons which moved their Lordships to feel that this was right. Why cannot the Parliamentary Secretary take this message back to his right hon. Friend—or bring his right hon. Friend back here? I am glad that I have been able to
… call spirits from the vasty deep.
But the quotation goes on I think:
But will they answer?
I hope that the Minister will——

Mr. Lubbock: But will they come, when you do call for them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer because, as he may have heard on his stately entry, I was saying that I hoped that he would, even at this stage, keep an open mind on this matter which has been urged upon him in another place by representatives of the Conservative and Liberal parties, and in this place by members of all three parties. I hope that he will not persist in obstinately turning this point down.
I do not want, just because the Minister has returned, to go over all the argument again, although I should like to think that he was prepared even now to consider it. I suggest that here he has a chance to do a limited act of justice to a limited number of people, and so preserve the position while the broader review of compensation that he has promised is undertaken. I am cer-

tain that another place was right to table this Amendment, and I shall back it.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that have been put both here and in another place, but it seems to me that hon. Members in all parts of the House were unhappy about the Bill as it stood before this Amendment was put down and that it would be in accordance with the will of the House if the Minister were to accept the Amendment. The arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening are extremely feeble. This period of 15 years to which he referred is arbitrary, and is not to be justified in any way that I can think of, whereas the 1939 date which was in the original Bill has some objective reasoning behind it.
The reasoning is that at the beginning of the last war, schemes of slum clearance were suspended, and they were not reintroduced until 1955, so if this determination of the period was suitable when the last Measure was introduced, it must be equally valid today. To say that at the time of the 1956 Act the Conservative Government had planned that the provisions would cease at the end of 10 years is not an argument that cuts any ice with me at all, nor do I think that it cuts any ice with those of his hon. Friends who spoke in favour of an Amendment similar to this in Committee. I therefore add my voice to the plea of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the matter should be reconsidered even at this very late stage.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I support the Amendment. I think that similar terms were acceptable to the overwhelming majority of hon. Members in Committee. One remembers the opinions they then expressed. Since I last spoke on this subject, I have had numerous letters and personal approaches from people in my constituency who have pointed out that they only now realise the effect of the Bill. It was only when examples were given at that late stage that they realised what was happening.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the people who are, as it were, being disfranchised were not distinguishable, but I suggest that they are, inasmuch as they are the group of people who believed that


they were safe and would be so treated as to ensure that they received market value. They banked on that and assumed that the proposed legislation would continue to protect them in that way. Now that they find that it is not so, they are a particularly disappointed group. The present proposal means that only persons who have owned houses for less than 15 years are eligible for full compensation if their houses are adjudged unfit. It does not go back even to 1950 because, by the time this legislation is in force, we shall be in 1966 and it will apply back to 1951. This is a kind of creeping decontrol, which we have heard criticised in the past from the benches opposite.
There will be the further anomaly that the 15-year limit does not take account of the individual problems and circumstances of people who bought at round about the critical time. It does not allow for those who have owned their homes not for 14½ years but for 15½ years. There should be provision to ensure that there is not a complete dividing line so that six months or so can make all the difference between market value and site value.
In my view, all owner-occupiers should receive full compensation, because that is the only fair way, but, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, 1939 is at least a reasonable point at which to start. Since 1939, people have been affected by wartime and post-war conditions, and they may very well have bought properties which they would not have dreamed of buying before the war. By the housing shortage and changes in their place of work, they have been forced to purchase these properties, and they bought on the understanding not that they would make a profit on them but, rather, that they would stay on and make their homes there.
It is estimated that in my constituency more than one-quarter of the properties may well be adjudged unfit now, and a very large number of them were bought in the period which, without the Amendment, will disqualify the owners from benefit. Many such properties were purchased just after the war when people came home from the Forces and went to the industrial conurbations to set up home.
One point brought very directly to my attention in the past few weeks is that the 15-year limit will hit older people

particularly. In the normal case, those who have lived in their homes the longest will be the older people, but they will be the ones to lose their homes and get little or no compensation. They expected that they would have to pay only the rates in their old age, and, goodness knows, the rates are high enough, but now they will have to pay municipal rents. A few minutes ago, the Minister reminded us that municipal rents had risen by 50 per cent. in 10 years. These people will find such rents very hard to pay out of their pensions. We ought to offer proper compensation for their homes so that they can purchase other properties, with 100 per cent. mortgages from their councils. Many local authorities are offering such facilities now, and we should encourage them.
In my constituency, with its densely concentrated population, we are finding that about 400 dwellings out of every new 600 built are taken up by people removed from development areas. It will be a terrible problem if everyone who could be covered by this Bill is given no compensation and has to go into a council dwelling. If we ensured that the majority of such people who bought between 1939 and 1951 were offered full compensation, they would have a chance to buy again instead of drawing on our social capital in the form of municipal housing.
10.45 p.m.
We should be seeking equity between neighbours. All the legislation produced by this House should be seen to be simple justice. How can it be simple justice if people on one side of a street, with identical houses to those on the other side, and which they bought at the same time, can be offered different rates of compensation merely because the local council's redevelopment scheme ended in in the middle of the road? The same applies to people living in different parts of the town who bought at different times but are offered different rates of compensation because some bought their houses a few months earlier than others bought theirs.
It is not too late to avoid this anomaly or the bitterness that is welling up. The Minister has received a number of letters from my constituents on this matter. This is of vital concern to areas like


Smethwick and others in the great conurbations. I make an appeal to him on behalf of my neighbours in Smethwick who have shown humanity and understanding. I hope that, even at this late stage, this might be matched by the humanity and understanding which has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
If the Amendment were accepted we should see a restoration of public confidence and it would also encourage local authorities to proceed with redevelopment. At the moment some, my own in particular, are concerned that, with more redevelopment, they might do more injustice—created not through any fault of theirs but because of this legislation.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my disgust at the Government's failure to accept the Amendment. I cannot understand the basis of their policy. If they maintain that only those people who were led to expect under the 1957 Act that they would get proper compensation for their homes when taken away should have their rights prolonged by this Bill, why exclude those who, by chance, have not had their houses purchased by the end of 1965?
If, on the other hand, the argument is that people are only entitled to 15 years' maximum occupation, at the end of which they are lucky if they get anything for their houses, why kick the stool from under that argument by refusing to accept an earlier date which would include people who were bought out after 1965? I hope that we shall enforce our disgust in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Graham Page: I hoped that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would rise. Is he so ashamed of this miserable little Bill and of throwing out this Amendment that he cannot even defend it? I am not surprised that he cannot defend it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary introduced some irrelevant points about landlords. We are not dealing with them; we are not, indeed, dealing with purchasers outside a very narrow compass.
These purchasers were given benefits in the 1957 Act for very good reason. What is the logic of depriving them of

it? I will quote the right hon. Gentleman an incident that occurred in the past fortnight. One of my constituents came to see me on Saturday, 4th December. He had purchased his property in 1947. He had heard that there was an intention to make a clearance order on the area. Had he not come to see me on 4th December he would now be £1,000 less well off. Because I saw that he would otherwise be deprived of his rights, I took him to see the town clerk, who was only too willing to advise his council to purchase the property during last week. If that constituent had not come to me on 4th December he would have lost £1,000. He did not know that this Bill was going through and that the Government intended to deprive him of that money. The right hon. Gentleman cannot defend this Bill. If he cannot accept the Amendment we must divide the House.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to make a long reply——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By leave of the House, I would like to explain to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that we are not depriving anybody of anything. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you are."] No. The Act, which was passed and is on the Statute Book, has expired. It has nothing to do with us. We are not taking away something. We are preserving something for one group of people.
I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) said. His argument was a strong one, however, against having any kind of distinction of this sort. He pointed out the unhappiness caused by the fact that a person who bought a house a month before a certain date got nothing, but that a person who bought a month afterwards would get something. That was the position in the existing legislation, however, and that would exist under the Lords Amendment, because under that Amendment a person who bought in 1938 would never have got anything under any legislation, and under this proposal he would still get nothing. The hon. Member put his finger on the difficulty that when one


tries to make arbitrary distinctions, it is extremely difficult to justify them.
There is a clear, understandable argument in favour of those who have not yet had their 15 years' run that they should get at least their 15 years. That is a clear and logical distinction between them and the other people who are affected.
Only a short time ago, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was writhing in fury because we were paying only 75 per cent. towards rate rebates and saying how monstrous it was to put any extra expenditure upon the ratepayer, and yet this Lords Amendment, in favour of which he will divide, would put something like £5 million extra on to the ratepayer and on to the costs——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman really not see the distinction between, on the one hand, the Government imposing a service upon local authorities and making them pay something for it and, on the other hand, a proposal to deprive a citizen of his house for a pittance?

Mr. MacColl: Our proposal does not impose a service. It relieves poorer ratepayers from something which is a burden

to them. The other thing is bringing in a level of compensation for them which is not in the existing housing legislation and which the last Government were happy and content to see expire at the end of this year.

Let the right hon. Gentleman remember that all his crocodile tears come back to the fact that the last Government did nothing. No one has suggested that they did anything at any stage to renew this legislation or do anything about it. They were perfectly happy to see it peter out, in which event all the hardship cases about which we have heard would have been far worse off. Because we have tried to get some kind of order and logic into the situation, we are being pilloried.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the hon. Gentleman really insisting on the Lords Amendment being thrown out of the Bill because it would cost £5 million? If it is to cost £5 million, that is the measure of the damage that the Government are doing to individuals, depriving them of £5 million.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 131.

Division No. 13.]
AYES
[10.54 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersffeld, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Garrow, Alex
Mapp, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Robert


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridge ton)
Grey, Charles
Mendelson, J. J.


Binns, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Will (M'Chester, Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Braddoek, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, R. W, (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Newens, Stan


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Howie, W.
Norwood, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
O'Malley, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis,
Jackson, Colin
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Oswald, Thomas


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Will


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R, H. S.
Lawson, George
Parker, John


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman


Darling, George
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Popplewell, Ernest


Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, Neil
Redhead, Edward


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, J.
Rees, Merlyn


Dempsey, James
MacColl, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Richard, Ivor


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
MacMillan, Malcolm
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fernyhough, E.
Mclnnes, James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)




Rose, Paul B.
Thornton, Ernest
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rowland, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Sheldon, Robert
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Silkin, John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wilton, William (Coventry, S.)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, Mrs. Eirene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, J. B.
Whitlock, William
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Gammans, Lady
Murton, Oscar


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Atkins, Humphrey
Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Peel, John


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony
Pitt, Dame Edith


Berkeley, Humphry
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pounder, Rafton


Besself, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bingham, R. M.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hawkins, Paul
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hay, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brewis, John
Hendry, Forbes
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Scott-Hopkins, James



Hirst, Geoffrey
Sharpies, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Homby, Richard
Shepherd, William


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bryan, Paul
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Stainton, Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Buxton, Ronald
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Studholme, Sir Henry


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Talbot, John E.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jopling, Michael
Teeling, Sir William


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
Kilfedder, James A.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kitson, Timothy
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Curran, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Mac Arthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McLaren, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
Webster, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maddan, W. F. M.
Whitelaw, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wise, A. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Errington, Sir Eric
Mitchell, David



Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Farr, John
More, Jasper
Mr. Ian Fraser and


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

11.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is consequential on the last Amendment with which we disagreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Crossman, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Graham Page, and Mr. Rhodes; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Crossman.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — WALKIE-TALKIE SETS (IMPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The point that I wish to raise seems to be a most extraordinary anomaly about which I have aleady been in correspondence with the Board of Trade and about which put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade for oral answer on 18th November last.
I hold in my hand one part of a walkie-talkie set. It consists of a small oblong box of black plastic, with a silver-coloured metal front, a telescopic aerial which can be pulled out from it, a switch to turn it on and off, and a button at the side to transfer it from receiving to transmitting. On the front are the words "Walkie-talkie Model TR 220", the crest of an eagle with the words "Eagle Products", and the words "On" and "Off" against the switch, all of which are in English. On the back in very small letters on a black background is the word "Japan".
This very hardy and efficient piece of apparatus is part of a Japanese walkie-talkie set operating on the 27 megacycle band with a range of between 500 yards and a mile. It was bought for £12 10s. by one of my constituents, a Mr. Glanville, a solicitor practising in New-quay, Cornwall, who thought that it would be useful to him in laying out building estates in country areas so that he could talk to his clerk on another part of the estate.
Mr. Glanville informs me that the pamphlet that was issued with the set stated that it was adjusted for use as a wireless telephone between short distances with low power output
in pursuance of the requirements of the provisions of FCC/15205.
There was no indication on the pamphlet that that was not a British provision, but apparently that is a reference to an American statutory provision commonly known as the "citizens' transmitting code."
When Mr. Glanville applied to the Post Office for a licence he was informed

that the Postmaster-General would not license the transmission of speech on these frequencies since the band had been designated for industrial, scientific and medical use. It is well known that under the Wireless Telegraphy Act no one can use a transmitter without a licence and that considerable numbers of people have been prosecuted for doing so. It has particularly come to the attention of people in my constituency that recently in Cornwall a number of fishermen were fined £5 for using unlicensed walkie-talkie sets in their boats while out at sea for the purpose of fishing.
But Mr. Glanville was unable to get his £12 10s. back from the seller who pointed out that it was perfectly legal to sell these sets. Thus we are in the absurd position that at a time when we are trying to restrict imports, currency is being used to import a useless article which can only be used in defiance of the law, but no steps are taken to prevent its import or to prohibit its sale to the public. This seems to me to be connivance at a fraud on the public.
When I wrote to the President of the Board on 13th September last, I asked that either the import of this apparatus should be prohibited or my constituent should be given compensation for having purchased it and not being able to return it. I was told by the Minister of State that he could do neither. He admitted that the Board of Trade had powers to regulate import in the broad economic interests of the country, but he said that it would not be right to use them in a case such as this.
He added that the General Post Office had no power to control the sale of wireless apparatus but only to prosecute for its unlicensed use. He said that the General Post Office was aware that some dealers were selling these Japanese sets and that as a precautionary measure the editors of trade and other relevant publications had been written to pointing out that it was illegal to use them, even for demonstration purposes. This seems to be a singularly futile gesture—I was sent a copy of the letter—because these sets are still on sale quite openly. I am told by my constituents that they are on sale in London, and can be purchased in Regent Street. They have been advertised in the London Press as suitable Christmas presents for children, and it really is


quite intolerable that things should be advertised for sale when it is illegal to use them.
When I asked the President of the Board of Trade a Question on this, I was told by the Minister of State that the import of these sets could not be prohibited because of the practical difficulties involved, and that legislation to deal with it would be a matter for the Postmaster-General. I think that this is most unsatisfactory, and that the Government should make up their minds about this matter.
It is true that facilities are available for the private mobile radio services using speech in the 80, 160, 170, and 460 megacycle bands, but if the 27 megacycle band cannot be used for speech transmission, the import and sale of these sets ought to be prohibited, or the use of this band should be permitted, following the American practice for a citizens' transmitting code.
I hope that this matter can be looked at again, because here we are at Christmas time with these things openly on sale and no steps being taken to prevent them being sold to the public, in circumstances which can only be described as fraudulent.

11.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I fear that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) will soon consider that, from his point of view, this Adjournment debate has been a frustrating and unsatisfactory exercise, because, before I finish, I am afraid that he will find himself shuttled backwards and forwards between two Government Departments, and I think he will find that he has got no further with his demand for a ban on the import of these Japanese walkie-talkie sets.
The hon. Member is in something of a dilemma, and I can sympathise with him. If he can make out a case for banning these imports, then, as I said in reply to the Question to which he referred, the Department to impose the ban is not the Board of Trade but the General Post Office. But, of course, he cannot in an Adjournment debate ask the Post Office to do this because the General Post Office would need legislation to obtain the authority to exercise the ban, and he can-

not ask for legislation in an Adjournment debate.
On the other hand, as he has quite properly explained, the Board of Trade has authority to control imports without further legislation, so the hon. Member has directed his request to the Board of Trade, but this exercise, I am afraid, does not get him any forrader, because the Board of Trade has not used, and will not use, its controlling powers for the purpose which the hon. Member has advocated.
In our view it would be quite wrong for the Board of Trade to exercise its powers for this purpose. The power concerned are contained in the Import, Export and Custom Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which was passed by Parliament in the early days of the last war. Incidentally, the Bill went through all its stages in this House in precisely 16 minutes flat, and this illustrates that it was clearly not designed for the purpose for which the hon. Member is urging us to use it tonight. During the war extensive use was made of the powers, for emergency purposes, but after the war all Governments increasingly took the view that until such time as Parliament should consider the powers to be no longer necessary the Board would use them only for economic or commercial purposes in the broad national interest, and that where it was thought necessary to control imports for other than economic purposes—in this case because the products are useless, according to the hon. Member, although I shall deal with that point shortly—or for reasons of public health or animal health, or wild life preservation, the Government Department most responsible for the field of activity should take its own powers to effect such control. We have examples of controls being exercised for these various purposes—for instance, imports of dangerous drugs, obscene literature, flick knives, and various animals and plants.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is it not in the economic interest to prevent the waste of money on something that cannot be used?

Mr. Darling: I am coming to that. I am seeking to show that if there is a need for a ban on imports other than for broad commercial purposes, over


which the Board of Trade exercises control—the Government Department concerned should exercise judgment in this regard. The hon. Member has suggested that we should prevent the imports of these sets, but it is no mere perverseness on the part of the Board of Trade which causes it to refuse to do so.
The hon. Member has said that these sets are completely useless, but that is not quite true. They do operate, but they are not allowed to operate in this country because the waveband to which they are tuned is needed for other and more important purposes, and the Post Office is clear that this waveband must not be used for any purpose other than those designated. But the sets can be adjusted; they are not completely useless.
In any case, if the hon. Member goes on to say that there is a case for consumer protection—to protect the consumer against buying something which has no value—we do not want to use import control for this purpose, because if a case can be made out on those broad lines the protection should apply over the whole field—to home-produced goods that come into the same category, as well as imports. This could be done, but we took the view that if we discriminated against imports on the ground of broad consumer protection such discrimination might be interpreted as contrary to our international commitments under G.A.T.T.
Apart from this there would be immense practical difficulties in drawing up definitions of what, for the purposes of an import ban, constituted a useless or sub-standard article and in defining what circumstances—for example, in this case, ignorance of the purchaser of the fact that a licence would not be granted—might render useless an apparently useful article. It would also be impossible for Customs to administer an import control based on such principles.
The hon. Member also raised the question of balance of payments. It would be possible for the Board of Trade, if we wanted to do so—and we should not wish to use our powers for this purpose—to prohibit the import of these sets on the ground that they are useless and therefore unnecessarily harm the balance of payments. But this presupposes that the goods are always useless, and this is not

so. In any case, it presupposes that it is right in principle to ban imports of useless articles for balance-of-payments reasons. That would lead us into difficulties. There are two objections to any proposal of that kind. First of all, there is infinite scope for variations in opinion as to what is and what is not a useless article. Secondly, many of our own exports might he considered by some countries to fall into the category of not being useful, and we should risk retaliation. Under G.A.T.T. we are permitted to restrict imports for balance-of-payments reasons, but the temporary imports charge was chosen as an alternative, and, in any case, import restrictions of this kind must be nondiscriminatory as between countries.
Also, as I have said before, it would be extremely difficult to define the term "useless" in the context of an import ban and, even if they could be defined, to prohibit imports of selected useless articles rigidly for balance-of-payments reasons would not be acceptable to our trading partners.
What can be done? The Post Office has tried to give the widest publicity through the trade Press and by circularising known dealers in these sets to the fact that they will not license transmitters for speech use in the 27 megacycle waveband. It should now surely be a matter of common knowledge that all wireless transmitters must be licensed. The row over the pop pirate stations, I am sure, has brought this to everybody's attention in the country by now. A sensible view is that any prospective purchaser of a wireless transmitter should first of all apply to the General Post Office to find out whether he is likely to get a licence to operate it.
I do not know what more can be done. I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General again to see whether we can give wider publicity, but the hon. Member's case rests on the assumption that the set is in all circumstances useless, and this is not so; it can be adjusted. I am not suggesting that anybody should be encouraged to go round adjusting sets, but if one has to define that it is useless it will be extremely difficult to do so for the reason that it is not useless in all circumstances. I have mentioned the possibility of retaliation if we take discriminatory action.
I think, therefore, that the way out of the difficulty is to give the greatest possible publicity to the situation. It may be that the importers themselves should tell the Japanese manufacturers that the sets cannot be operated in this country on the 27 megacycle waveband to which they are adjusted. Surely the importers ought to have done this long before now,

and it may be that this debate will encourage them to do what I think ought to be done. But for the reasons which I have given, I am afraid that the hon. Member will find this debate very unsatisfactory and frustrating.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.